Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Mr. Woodburn; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Monday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the pensions to be paid to and in respect of members of police forces and as to the length of the period of their service, to amend and repeal with savings certain statutory provisions relating to the pensions to be paid to and in respect of members of police forces and as to the length of their service, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required so to be paid by regulations made under the said Act in respect of persons who are or have been such persons as are mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, and of persons whose salary or remuneration is or was wholly or partly payable out of moneys so provided or who are or may become entitled to or eligible for pensions so payable;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required to be so paid by such regulations as aforesaid in respect of such persons as aforesaid."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.].

CLAUSE 1—(Police pension regulations.)

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this Act.
This is a sort of inverted consequential Amendment. It paves the way for the new Clause which appears later on the Order Paper. It is necessary to put down this Amendment so that we can discuss the new Clause. I do not know whether it would be convenient to have a general discussion at this stage, or whether we should wait until we reach the new Clause, provided that the Government will give an undertaking to make this Amendment on Report stage.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It is probably correct to say that the new Clause depends on the insertion of some such words as these, but on the other hand, this Amendment depends on the exact form of the new Clause. There is no question of principle on this matter, although there may be some discussion as to the exact way in which the Bill should be altered. We desire to do two things. The first is that there shall be a complete removal of any doubt as to the legal entitlement of a police officer to a pension. It was felt by some Members that the Bill, as phrased, did not give that specific assurance, and to remedy that I have put down a number of Amendments on behalf of the Government.
In addition to desiring to give that assurance, it is also desired that the Bill should not be so inflexible on points of detail as to make it almost impossible to effect any improvements in the pensions scheme in the future without coming to the House for a complete Measure. That has been one of the difficulties in the past. When it has been desired to make improvements, the only way in which that could be done was by bringing a Bill to the House, with the possibility that a wide range of subjects might be opened up although the Bill itself might deal with a point of detail on which there was agreement, let us say, between the Police Force and the Home Office. That being so, there


has been a natural reluctance to bring forward Bills dealing with small points, which might be capable of almost infinite enlargement.
While desiring to give the assurances that we think the Police Force are entitled to, we desire to retain the flexibility which comes from regulations. We wish to achieve that today, but whether we shall get a balance which will be generally acceptable to the Committee it is too early to say now. Most of the Amendments which have been put down by hon. Members opposite find an alternative method of expression in the Amendments which have been put down by the Government. It may be that at the end of the day it will be discovered that these words will be quite unnecessary, but, in the event of Amendments being made to the Bill necessitating such words as these, I will undertake to put down an Amendment on the Report stage.

Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who, I think, has accurately stated the position. I do not think there is a difference of principle between us now. What we are anxious to do is to pull back into the statute as much as possible in order to give assurances to members of Police Forces. I agree with him that we cannot pull everything back, and that when it is desired to make certain improvements, to do that under regulation is a distinct advantage. We wish to put a bottom into the conditions of the statute for the further assurance of police officers, but, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and on the understanding that we shall be able to discuss the new Clause on the Order Paper, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move in page I, line 12, to leave out from "forces," to the end of line 15.
This is a drafting Amendment which is necessary to pave the way for the new Clauses—(Age of compulsory retirement) and (Pensions and gratuities of members of a police force), which stand on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). Perhaps we may have a discus-

sion about those new Clauses on this Amendment, Major Milner.

The Chairman: Yes, if the Committee have no objection.

Mr. Grimston: The ages which have been put down in these new Clauses are those laid down in the White Paper and are in operation at present. We believe that they should be put into this Bill. Up till now the position has been that the ages could not be altered without the matter being brought before Parliament in the form of a Bill. In so far as they will, in future, be made the subject of regulation, we think it will give future entrants to Police Forces less security of tenure, so to speak, than they have had before. I see no reason why, in a case of this sort, the ages should not be put into the Statute, as they were before. The wording is taken from the existing Police Pensions Act.
In discussions on these Clauses I was much impressed, last week, by the amount of feeling which manifested itself among the police in the country at the regulation provisions in this Bill. Uneasiness has been expressed in many quarters that what was formerly a statutory right should now become subject to regulation. Recruiting is a difficult problem for the police these days, and as we want existing members of the police to be free from uneasiness, and to attract future entrants by giving them proper conditions and security of service, we should do everything we possibly can to put the statute right. I do not think I should be going too far if I said that the Home Secretary is now inclined to that view himself. I urge the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether he cannot later accept these new Clauses for the reasons I have just advanced.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I would like—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order. This Amendment is now law by Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act 1921 and, that being so—

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member appears to be arguing the merits of the case.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: After I had prepared the ground, I was going to submit that this Amendment was out of Order, and that it could not be accepted because


it is already part of the law. I was trying to justify my point. In the First Schedule on page 7 it is indicated that there is to be no repeal of that particular provision or any other provision in the Police Act until regulations have been made.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is arguing the merits of the Amendment. That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Very well, I will leave it at that.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I support the Amendment, and I ask the Home Secretary to see that this provision about the retiring age goes into the Bill. The question of whether something should be left to regulation or whether it should be in the Bill will crop up over and over again. In supporting this proposal, I would point out considerations which should induce us to put this matter in the Bill, and not leave it to regulation. There is a generalisation to be made here. Whatever does not go into the Bill will be dealt with by a regulation after discussion by a particular body, which is the Police Council. The Police Council is not, in the trade union sense of the word, a representative body, although it has representatives of the Police Force sitting on it.
If the proposal was to leave the regulations to be drafted by a different body from the Police Council, one might view it from a different angle of approach. Other branches of the public service have better machinery than the Police Council. There is the Whitley Council for the Civil Service, and the local government service has a Whitley body. These bodies are representative. If the Home Secretary said, "Do not put it in the Bill because it will be dealt with by a body like the National Whitley Council," instead of the proposal that it should be after discussion with the Police Council one would take a different view. I hope that before long the Home Secretary will allow policemen to have a proper trade union organisation which can negotiate and settle these matters, and not leave them in the hands of, what is in the strict sense of the word, an unrepresentative body like the Police Council.
I hope that all the main provisions of the pensions scheme will go into the Bill. I see no difficulty about that. When we are dealing with civil servants, teachers

or other categories of public employers, we find it possible to put in the statute, not every detail of the pension schemes, but at least the main provisions. One of the main provisions is the stage in his life when an individual becomes eligible to receive pension on retirement. It does make a great difference whether one gets a pension at 40 or 60. The fixing of the retiring age is a major condition of service. In those circumstances, we ought to put the retirement age into the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will be accommodating about this. I know that his heart and instincts on this matter are good. He has on other matters put down Amendments to transfer from regulations to the Bill a number of points which were raised in Debate a fortnight ago. I cannot see why this should not be among them. There is good reason why it should be put in the Bill.
I went to Rugby last weekend, which brightened up the old town considerably. While there I talked in the police club with the police about the provisions of the Bill. I found an astonishing degree of apprehension about the Bill. I do not believe that it is in the mind of the Home Secretary to use the weapon of regulations subsequently to be applied, to alter the pension scheme to the disadvantage of the police. I believe that we can rely on their getting not less than the provisions of the 1921 Act. But it is not enough that that should be so. It is essential that the police should believe it to be so. At the moment, they do not believe it to he so. The view expressed to me was that the present Home Secretary was the best Home Secretary we have ever had. That is the view of the police. It is a view shared by me. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a first-rate Home Secretary, but he will not live for ever, and he will not be Home Secretary for ever. We do not know what use will be made of these regulations by a Home Secretary of a different complexion, a different character, of less genial disposition, and less seized with a passion for justice, than the present occupier of that office.
The police fear that the transfer of provisions of the pensions scheme from Act of Parliament to regulations is the beginning of an effort to get rid of the existing police pensions scheme. I do not believe that is true.


But if any considerable number of policemen feel that way, that is a strong argument for including the main provisions of the pensions scheme in the Bill. This is one such provision. In the Civil Service Superannuation Act the retiring age is laid down as 60. In service after service one could quote the relevant Act and the relevant retiring age, so I cannot see why that cannot be done here.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I recognise that one thing that ought to be in the Bill—and I am all for it—is the existing retiring age. Does the hon. Gentleman approve the figure of 55 for compulsory retirement for sergeants and constables?

Mr. Brown: During the war we took the view that because of the shortage of manpower it was undesirable to send a man out at 60. He was capable of making an effective contribution to the nation. The Treasury by regulations enabled men to stay on beyond the normal retiring age of 60 until the age of 65. There is no reason why that should not be done in the Police Force, if necessary.

Mr. Hale: The best thing is to do it now.

Mr. Brown: If we want to do it now there is still no reason why we cannot have the normal retiring age in the Act of Parliament, and at the same time make provision in exceptional circumstances for moving that age limit up or down.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Would that be possible? The word in this Clause is "compulsory," and if the Act says that retirement shall be compulsory on attaining a certain age we cannot alter it by regulation.

Mr. Brown: There are more ways of killing a cat than by drowning it in cream. We could adopt the method used in the last war under which a man retired at the appropriate age and was then immediately re-engaged as a temporary. That consideration ought not to deter us from putting the retirement age in the Bill.

Major Bruce: I support the Home Secretary in his general desire to be free from the restrictions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. I think that there is an immediate case that those

factors in the pensions provisions which are likely to be of a variable character over the years should quite properly be the subject of regulations. I do not see how the particular provision which is proposed by the Opposition could come under that heading. It was enacted in the Police Pensions Act 1921, and so far has stood the test of time. In the White Paper which the Home Secretary has issued he notifies that he proposes to put into operation regulations in almost the same terms as those of the original Act. Therefore it would be best if this provision were substantive in the Bill itself.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Grimston: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really begging the whole question. The Home Secretary has announced what he will do under these regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, the police are quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman, but he will not always be there. The whole argument is that it is better to have security by Act of Parliament than under regulations.

Major Bruce: That is precisely the point I am putting in support of the hon. Gentleman. I entirely support his desire in this matter, and I was quoting in support the fact that the Home Secretary, although he said he wished to be free from the confines of the Act, nevertheless himself proposed to re-enact this same point under regulations, which only goes to indicate that the Act itself could not have been particularly restrictive over the 25 years since it was enacted.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised the point about the retiring age from the police, and I should like to have some observations from my right hon. Friend as to what the age of compulsory retirement is to be. There is a point of view in the Police Force which says that there ought to be compulsory retirement when a policeman has qualified for his maximum pension in his own rank. The reason for that is very clear. Service in the Police Force, is an extremely onerous affair. The police suffer from many occupational diseases and they work under harsh conditions. A large number of them die at a comparatively young age. The average expectation of life of


a policeman on beat is very much lower than that of the average Member of Parliament, with the result that the Police Force tends to become rather replete with officers, who find themselves unable to carry out arduous outside duties. This necessitates the creation of a number of jobs indoors behind desks and so on, which in the view of many officers of the police tends to clog the prospects of promotion, and does, in fact, militate against people entering the Force. Therefore, I should like my right hon. Friend to say whether he has any views about that matter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I quite sympathise with those who have said that they would like to see filled in the empty spaces of this Bill. The point I want to make, which I made somewhat prematurely before, is that in the meantime the provisions that are being referred to are the law as it now exists. In fact, the whole of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is the law at the present moment, and will remain the law notwithstanding this particular Bill.
What happens under it is that with the exception of Sections 30 and 35 and the Third Schedule of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, when the regulations are made under this particular Bill the 1921 Act becomes repealed, but there is a special provision here that goes on to say that there are to be consequential provisions made to replace the provisions of the 1921 Statute which have been repealed. I do not say for a moment that the Home Secretary ought not to indicate what these consequential provisions are going to be when the 1921 Act, with the exceptions I have mentioned, is automatically repealed by reason of the making of regulations. As I understand it, meanwhile the present provisions of the Act are to remain because there is nothing in this Bill to put in their place, but as soon as the regulations, which are intended to be tantamount to and to replace the provisions of the 1921 Act, are made, it would be proper to repeal that Act, because it would then become superfluous.
Only one point remains. It is perfectly clear in my submission that what is being sought to be done here cannot be done. This House is going to stullify itself by redundantly seeking to import into this Bill statutory provisions

which now have the force of law. On the other hand, I quite appreciate that those who are anxious as to what is going to happen in the regulations should raise the point, because by the same token as the regulations appear so will the 1921 Statute diappear.
That, then, is the point on which we must concentrate. What will the regulations contain? In my submission this Amendment does not repeal the equivalent provision in the 1921 Act. It does not provide any machinery or words saying that the relevant section in the 1921 Act and which is the law at the present moment is repealed either immediately or when the Bill becomes an Act. Nor does it provide that when the regulations are made that the new law is going to be identical with the sections that have ceased to operate. It seems to me that is legislating confusion. Certainly, it is not likely to have the effect that the Home Secretary and all those interested in this matter want it to have.
I suggest that the proper way to deal with this matter is either to repeal the whole of the 1921 Statute now and import into this Bill the provisions that it is proposed ought to replace it; or the Home Secretary should state quite explicity—I think he goes a long way to do that in the White Paper—that when he makes the regulations which are to repeal the 1921 statute, they will contain identical or better terms than are provided by that Statute.

Mr. W. J. Brown: It seems to me that the burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that we should deny to Parliament as a whole the liberty which every Member of Parliament possesses—of repeating himself.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was not the point at all. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is in a difficulty here. He does not take into account what is going to be the position on this point of redundancy. My submission was and still is that the form of this Amendment is not in order, with all respect, because it is seeking to enact what is already the law, and it seeks to do nothing else.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: There are times when I understand the attitude of non-legal Members towards Members of the legal profession. This is one of those


moments. We should get back to the merits of the question, which is really very simple: Should there be provision in the Bill to say when a police officer retires and when he is entitled to pension? If there is any merit in the argument presented by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) it can be dealt with by a small consequential Amendment to the Schedule. We need not worry about it.
I am. in this difficulty: if I do not support the proposed Clause and the Home Secretary does not undertake to introduce a better one on the Report stage, there will be nothing in the Bill. There will be a provision in the regulations which the Home Secretary will produce, on the matter mentioned on page 5 of the White Paper, but the House will not be able to change the regulations. The House has only the right to approve or disapprove of the regulations as a whole, and has no right to vary particular provisions. If the proposed alteration, or some similar alteration, is not accepted, all that will happen is that the Home Secretary will introduce his regulations which will contain an identical provision in regard to retirement, and willy-nilly we shall have to accept or reject those regulations as a whole.
There is always difficulty when we are considering an enabling Bill, a mere framework, and some of us try to import into the Bill provisions we think should be there. The final statute is a hybrid piece of work containing some definite provisions and leaving others to be dealt with by regulation. It would be far better if the substance of the proposed regulations appeared in the form of a Schedule to the Bill. We could then discuss the merits of the proposals seriatim.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Perrins: I add my support to the plea that we should have as much as we can in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. Within my constituency I have a police estate—

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that he has a police State in his constituency?

Mr. Perrins: No, Sir, I said a police estate. So long as we have a Government

like the one we now have, we shall never have a police State in this country. I have been surprised at the number of personal letters that individual Members of the Police Forces have addressed to me. They are not the usual agitation type of letter. I could quote from a number of them. I will quote one sentence from one letter. The point it contains is raised in a number of the letters. This particular member of the Police Force wrote:
The members of the service have felt a comparative security so far as pensions are concerned, in as much as they were not subject to the whims of successive Secretaries of State.
That is a very important and valid point. Before I came to this House I was a trade union official and dealt with the public services. I had to be familiar with the Superannuation Acts. I often had an argument with a member or with the borough treasurer about entitlement to pension, but all the time we knew that the pension conditions were stated in the Acts of Parliament. We knew that the men were covered by Act of Parliament and by superannuation schemes, but even then there were borderline and doubtful cases. What is to be the position if those details are to be only in regulations? My personal experience has been that while men might not have been very happy about their apportionment of pension, they were satisfied when they knew they had been dealt with strictly in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament, and no ill will remained on their part.
The inclusion of the terms and conditions in the Act itself would lead to uniformity among people receiving pensions. I hope we shall not have regulations for this purpose. They may call for a report upon a man's service and the report may be somewhat conditioned by the relationship that existed between the constable and his superior officer. The whole of the terms and conditions should be embodied in law, rather than in regulation.

Mr. Grimston: The discussion has rather centred upon the age of retirement. I would like to point out that when I started the discussion I referred to two new Clauses. There is another printed on page 11, relating to entitlement. It is equally important that entitlement to pension should be enshrined in the statute.

Mr. Ede: As far as the last point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is concerned, I would say that the proposal standing on the Order Paper in my name is intended to deal with that point and to secure entitlement. I should prefer to argue that point when we come to it.
As usual, hon. Members have made it clear that it is not the existing occupant of this Office who is under suspicion in this mattter but some future occupant. I have heard that point made so often that it considerably discounts the high testimonial that was given to me by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown).

Mr. W. J. Brown: I should not like to have it discounted by what has just been said by the Home Secretary. I really should have a bonus share issue, in order to compensate me for any loss.

Mr. Ede: I am sure we are anxious to remove any misgiving there may he on this matter in the Police Force. The White Paper makes it clear that the Bill is designed to cover three cases: Compulsory retirement on ground of age; compulsory retirement for any member of a Police Force who is qualified for a two-thirds pension and is required by the police authority to retire on the ground that his retention in the Force would not be in the best interests of efficiency, on the lines of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1921, and compulsory retirement of a man who is medically unfit for performing the work of a constable. This third case is not covered, unfortunately, by the existing law. It is a gap in the law which we think ought to be filled. The police authority probably has the power, in cases of unfitness, to dismiss the man, but it is doubtful if the man is then entitled to a pension at all. Everyone will agree that it is a very serious blemish in the law. It is an example of the way in which things crop up in the administration of a law, which makes it desirable that there should be a fairly easy remedy for dealing with a weakness when it is revealed.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Surely, if a gap exists, it should be closed? But is it not the case that every other superannuation scheme in the public service provides for pensions on retirement on the ground of ill health and provides for it in the Act?

Mr. Ede: I do not propose to make any general statement with regard to that, because someone may discover some other Act in which there is a similar blemish, or a blemish which would be taken as a parallel. I say that it is a blemish on the existing police pensions scheme and that it is one which I have undertaken, in the White Paper, to remedy by the regulations that I propose to make.
The hon. Gentleman's Clause suffers in itself, by one or two additional defects. It does not deal with that third point. The law would remain exactly the same as it is now, so far as the last point I have mentioned is concerned. While Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause refers to a retiring pension rate of two-thirds of the annual pay, there is no reference elsewhere in the Bill to a pension at that rate. One of my difficulties with regard to this matter is that I have already announced that, at the beginning of next year, I will appoint a committee to consider the whole question of police pay and conditions of service. I have recently been urged to expedite the setting up of that committee. It would be wrong of me to argue the merits of that at the moment, but, at any rate, there is reasonable cause for saying that this is a matter of some considerable urgency, and that, whenever the committee meets and reports, it is to be hoped that there will be adequate machinery for giving quick effect to any recommendations that they may make for the improvement of the conditions of service.
If this Amendment is accepted, and the hon. Gentleman's new Clause is put into the Bill, it will mean a new Bill to go through the House to deal with any proposed improvements. It is impossible to give any pledge with regard to how the time of the House can be allocated a year or two hence. It might, therefore, considerably hamper the giving effect to the reasonable recommendations of such a committee as I have mentioned. I can help the hon. Gentleman in another way. I am exceedingly anxious to remove the fear that Amendments might be made in what, for want of a better term, I will call a "hole and corner" way, by putting something to be subject merely to negative Prayer, instead of to the method of positive Resolution. The hon. Gentleman has an Amendment later on and I accept the fact that this is a matter which is


causing great anxiety. It would constitute some assurance that the matter would have definitely to be considered by this House if I agree to the positive Resolution as opposed to the negative method. I shall have something to say when we come to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, but nearly all these Amendments involve looking at the Bill as a whole, and I would be prepared to do that.
I do not share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Perrins) with regard to the interpretation of the regulations. A regulation once made is as much law as if it was in the body of the Bill. Suppose, for example, the Police Federation approached me with regard to a particular case, where it might appear that a county treasurer, or the receiver of the Metropolitan Police, had taken an unduly harsh view of what was a man's entitlement. I should not say: "Well, you see, that is only in a regulation and you have not as much claim as if it was in an Act." If it is in the regulation, while the regulation remains, it is as much law, and has to be honoured, as if it is in a statute. I do not think, therefore, that the point made by my hon. Friend in that matter is a valid one. I ask the Committee to consider the fact that we have to promote this Bill in relation to the situation that arises today, owing to the coming into effect of the National Health Scheme on 5th July next. I am sure that no matter when the committee I have mentioned was appointed, it would not be possible for a report to be made which could be the subject of legislation before 5th July next. I have set out in the White Paper what I propose to put into the regulations. It closes the gap, which I have mentioned as being one that ought to be closed. It does, in fact, put into the regulations the ages which the hon. Gentleman asks me to put in.
One of the things I am anxious to secure is that there shall be a reasonable flow of promotion through the service. Drawing an analogy from my own experience in the teaching profession, I know the trouble that arises from a young man, or woman, of considerable ability having to serve for years and years in a subordinate capacity, because the right of promotion is retarded by the number of older people who are ahead of them. I am making neither promise nor threat, but one of the things that may emerge

is that the retiring age for chief constables should be reduced from 65 to 60. I would suggest that there might be circumstances under which that should be brought about, if we are to attract young men of quality and ambition into the service. I do not wish to put some future Home Secretary into the position that, if the time arrives when that ought to be done, it would have to be done by an Act of Parliament. I would suggest that an Amendment of that kind would be very difficult, no matter what Government was in power. It is precisely the kind of thing that might well be done by regulation, provided that it is protected by having a positive Resolution, so that the attention of the House is drawn to the fact when the change is made.
I hope the Committee will feel that, in all the circumstances, it is desirable that the present form of the Bill should remain. I am quite willing to consider any point on which it is desired that a specific assurance shall be given, but I do suggest that, at this stage, it is desirable to leave this matter as flexible as possible, and I hope that the Committee will accept the assurances I have given them with regard to our intentions in the matter.

12 noon.

Mr. Frank Byers: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for greater flexibility to cover any difficult cases, but I feel that greater flexibility will lead to greater fear on the part of the police themselves, because this is essentially a psychological problem. I would like to put this aspect of the problem to the Home Secretary. He has said, and we welcome it, that he is going to set up this committee, but I would like to see the committee set up very early indeed, because I think this is a most urgent matter. When the committee reports, the right hon. Gentleman wants to be free to translate their recommendations quickly into practice, but it is at that point also that he is going to come up against the psychological problem, because it will still be there and the police will want an assurance that those recommendations will be contained in an Act of Parliament.
Therefore, I think the Home Secretary will be deluding himself if he thinks he will remove that psychological fear in the minds of the Police Force by retaining this power to make regulations on the


ground that it is the only way in which it can be done quickly. It may be done quickly, but it will not help to solve this psychological Problem, and if the problem is not solved, he will have to have another Act of Parliament. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will reconsider this matter before the Report stage, to see if he can give greater security to the people who are going to serve in the Police Force for a long time? On the subject of the affirmative Resolution, there is no possibility of amending it, and it is purely a question of acceptance or rejection.

Mr. David Renton: There seems to me to be a time factor which the Home Secretary has overlooked regarding the regulations which are to be made. They are to be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and, when we introduce rather quick changes, they may upset the planning of their future careers by members of the Police Forces. When there is an Act of Parliament, on the other hand, there is generally a year or so—sometimes only six months—before it comes into force, whereas the affirmative Resolution comes into force at once. The fact that people are given greater warning by Act of Parliament is a further indication of the need for making these proposals subject to an Act of Parliament rather than an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Ede: I have never found that it requires much planning to deal with an increase of salary, and to be told that it is a good thing to have six months' warning, instead of having it done within 40 days, is new. I am hound to say that the difficulty of recruiting is very largely due to the fact that the economic circumstances of other people have so greatly improved. The attractions of security and good pensions and so on that used to belong to the police have now been largely discounted by the way in which these things have been secured by other people. I do not think there is any chance of anything happening to worsen their conditions.
I have been pressed frequently in the past, and my predecessors have been pressed, to deal with the question of widows' pensions. It has been impossible to deal with police widows' pensions because the Secretary of State has no powers, and can only get powers by a fresh Act of Parliament. I

have no doubt myself that something in that direction would have been done, in response to repeated pressure from the Police Forces of the country, if there had been a more flexible instrument by which it could have been done. I suggest to the Committee that, to contemplate two Police Pensions Acts within 12 months or 18 months, is something that hon. Members with experience of these matters will know would be very difficult indeed for any Secretary of State, no matter of what party, to achieve. Sometimes, it is easier to get a little Bill on the programme than it is to get a big one, and when the Chief Liberal Whip has experience of being Chief Whip to the Government, he will find that it is sometimes easier to resist the claims for a little Bill than the claims for a big one.
I therefore ask the Committee to accept the position that we are exceedingly anxious, when we get the opportunity, of dealing with the report of the committee which is to inquire into the whole of these conditions, to do it quickly, and that the form which we have provided in the Bill is a method which enables us to do that. I hope the Committee will allow us to proceed on those lines.

Mr. Grimston: I appreciate very much the way in which the Home Secretary has approached this matter, but I am still not happy about it. On the one side, we have the actual desire, expressed on every side of the Committee, to give the police the security of having their conditions enshrined in the statute. On the other side, we have the very reasonable argument of the right hon. Gentleman that that ties his hands, or the hands of any Home Secretary, in making improvements which may be desirable from time to time. This committee is to be set up, and it seems to me that, in the ordinary course of events, by far the best thing to do is to wait until the committee has reported, and then put its recommendations into the statute, but we are here up against the difficulty, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, of the impact of the new Health Service.
May I put this point to him, and hope that he will not think that I do not appreciate the way he has approached the matter? There is undoubtedly this apprehension and fear as to their conditions, and it has been strongly expressed in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman may not be able to give me an answer


straight away, but would he consider, between now and Report stage, the possibility of drafting something which would give to the police an assurance that their conditions will not be worsened? If he could find some form of words to cover the points made about the psychological problem by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and still leave the Home Secretary the freedom which he desires, I think that would help. Very likely, it will be difficult to do that, and I appreciate that it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer now. In the friendliest spirit, I urge the matter on the consideration of the Home Secretary, and I hope he will consider doing something on the lines which I have suggested.

Mr. Ede: I appreciate very much the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the point forward, and I will certainly consider the suggestion he has made. One of the proposals we are making is that new entrants to Police Forces shall suffer a reduction of pension at 65, but that they will also make a reduced contribution. This is done because of the coming into operation of the National Health Scheme on 5th July next. The present serving officer has the right of option whether he will take the full benefits under the National Health Act or the reduced benefit. If he opts for the reduced benefit, he pays the reduced rate of contribution as from the time he opts. I certainly could not contemplate putting in an Amendment that would vitiate the condition with regard to the new entrant, as far as the National Insurance Act is concerned, but I will consider whether, apart from that, it may not be possible so to frame this Bill as to make it clear that anything else that worsened the position of a police officer should be done by Act of Parliament, and not by regulation. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have made the reservation in regard to the new entrant and the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. Stubbs: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether the terms of reference of the committee which he proposes to set up will include consideration of the position of present widows. At the moment the police are not so much concerned about themselves as about the question of the widows.

Mr. Ede: I have put down an Amendment to the Bill in connection with present widows which I hope will enable the matter to be disposed of before the committee meets. However, if the committee desire to suggest something further with regard to widows, that, of course, will be within their terms of reference.

Mr. Stubbs: Thank you.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am sorry to find myself less accommodating than my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I must say that I am not happy about this. If one takes the logic of what the Home Secretary has said, in defending the method of regulation as against the Bill, we are travelling a very great distance indeed. He put forward two arguments. The first was that we have to do something about the coming into effect of the new Health Service Act. That is a very fair argument to make. The other argument was that, at some time in the future, he may want to alter conditions in the police service, following upon the report of the committee of inquiry. Let us see where those two arguments take us. The new Health Service Act is not going to affect the police only.

Mr. Ede: I inadvertently used the term "Health Service Scheme"; it should be "National Insurance Act."

Mr. Brown: I also used the wrong term, but we both mean the same thing. Let us see where that carries us. It will not only alter the position of policemen; it will affect the position of teachers, local government officers, prison officers, and local government servants. Are we to have the same arguments in respect of all the other services, because they will be affected by the new Act? Are the statutory provisions of pension to be removed from them, and passed over to somebody else to make by regulation?
If the right hon. Gentleman rests mainly upon the other leg—that, from time to time, he may want to alter the conditions in the police service—is it not also the case that, from time to time, we may want to alter the conditions of civil servants, and the machinery which regulates the pay of teachers? We have a Whitley Council in respect of local government servants. Are we, because of the anticipation that at some point in the future we may want to alter this, that, or the other, to destroy


all the statutory provisions governing their pensions at the present time? I cannot see the logic of that. I can understand that it is embarassing to the Home Secretary to have to come along with a new Bill; that is always embarrassing; but I submit it ought not to weigh against the creation, throughout the police service, and, by extension, throughout all the public services, if we treated them on the same basis, of a state of uncertainty, insecurity, and doubt about the future of their pension schemes.
12.15 p.m.
I must say that the right hon. Gentleman often convinces me that I am wrong, but, on this occasion, he does not convince me to that effect. It seems to me that the whole balance of the argument lies in retaining the original Bill, but qualifying it in two or three short sentences to cover the points he has made. By a simple Clause in this Bill, we could cover the question of the widows; by another short Clause we could cope with the question of retirement on health grounds, and, in the same way, we could cover the effect of this Bill on the police pension scheme under the National Insurance Act. The contributions under that Act do not seem to me to constitute any case for destroying the whole of the 1921 Police Act, which is, in fact, what we are doing, and providing, thereafter, that the matter should be dealt with by regulation, and after consultation with a body which, with great respect to it, the policeman does not regard as affecting him. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) was so accommodating and had not more of the spirit of Cromwell, who was prepared to die at the last ditch. I feel strongly about this, and think that we ought to divide on it.

Mr. Ede: I think the last thing Cromwell wanted to do was to die at the last ditch. I understand that his motto was, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry. Live to fight another day." That, I think, is the line which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has adopted. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has not done more than reiterate the arguments he made in his original speech. He should really keep himself up to date, because what we propose to do with regard to the police officers under National Insurance has

already been done for the local government service. It has been done by regulation, which was not prayed against in the House.
I have already given what, I am quite sure, can be regarded as an assurance that any regulation I make will not slip through in the same way. I cannot think that the National Association of Local Government Officers was unaware of the regulations being published. I have endeavoured to meet the objections made by the hon. Member, and I will undertake to see whether I can find words that, with the one exception, will entail introducing a Bill if it is proposed to worsen the conditions, in any particular, of the policemen under the scheme. I will make a genuine endeavour to find such words.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page it, line 17, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
This Amendment ensures that regulations must be made. A fear was expressed on the last occasion that this was one way in which I could abolish the Police Pension Scheme—that the power to make regulations would be given to me, and that I would just say, "Well, I am too busy, we are not playing." This imposes on the Secretary of State the duty to make the regulations, and I hope that, as far as it goes, the Committee will agree it is an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to seem ungrateful and look a gift Amendment in the mouth, but really, the concession which the Home Secretary has made is very small. All that he is putting into the Bill is an obligation on himself or his successors to make regulations dealing with the five subjects on the top of page 2. There is no provision whatsoever as to the amount of pensions which he shall be compelled to insert in those regulations, and, as I understand it, he would comply with the Bill, as amended, if he made regulations providing for a pension of 1d. per year under those five heads. Therefore, though in principle it is a goad thing for the right hon. Gentleman to bind himself to introduce regulations, it would be a pity if the Committee were left under the misunderstanding that he


has bound himself to do very much. All that he has done is to bind himself to make regulations covering these five subjects. He has not put into the Bill any undertaking to provide adequate pensions under any of those five headings. Before the Committee congratulate themselves too noisily on the concession that they have obtained from the Home Secretary, they should appreciate that it is very small, although very welcome.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said is not at all well founded. The Amendment really comes well within the assurance that the Home Secretary has just given. In any case, it is perfectly true that to substitute the word "shall" for "may" is better because the First Schedule indicates quite clearly that the 1921 Act is not to be repealed until regulations are made. Therefore, in any case, even apart from that word, it is obligatory upon the Home Secretary to make regulations before he can interfere with the present provisions. Under the 1921 Act there is a scale: the amounts are there. The Home Secretary has said that if the situation worsens appropriate words will be found to deal with the changed situation. Therefore, what the hon. Member said was absolutely unjustified.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot let those remarks pass. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has suggested that this Amendment would be very much better if the Home Secretary introduced a totally different Amendment on the Report stage. That is hypothetical, and it may well be true, but it is no answer to the point that I have made. I do not wish to detain the Committee, because this is a small point, but this Amendment is in itself an extremely small concession. That is the point, and no amount of reference to other Amendments which are not even yet on the Paper, never mind in the Bill, can get away from that point. It is a very small mouse which this particular mountain has produced.

Mr. Ede: I am engaged on a Bill upstairs in a Committee on which there are 20 lawyers. It does not lead to speed. There are only two taking part in the discussions so far, but it is clear that we are running true to form. This was

not claimed to be a big Amendment, and, while it is true that the hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to look it in the mouth, he did start pulling the lips back. This Amendment is introduced to deal with a difficulty which was pointed out recently. I do not claim more for it than that, but it is to be read in the light of the pledge that I gave on the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page r, line 18, at end, insert:
subject to the provisions of the regulations."—[Mr. Ede.]

Major Bruce: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "die," to insert "or have died."
This Amendment, which I am not at all sure will accomplish the purpose I have in mind, but which I have put down in good faith, seeks to ensure that under regulations which the Home Secretary may make two important classes of people can be covered. The first class of people which I want to be covered by the new pensions regulations is that of people who are classed as pre-1918 widows who at the moment have no pensions at all, despite the fact that their husbands died while serving in the Police Force. I do not wish to go back too much into history. Perhaps the best way of putting the case of the pre-1918 widows would be to refer to the very temperate words of the Combined Report of the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales for the year 1946–47. There, in quite calm and dispassionate language, is put the case for the pre-1918 widow. Paragraph 59 says:
A class of widow which will never be forgotten is the pre-1918 widow. It was on behalf of those actual widows, as well as certain other unsatisfactory conditions, that police took unprecedented action with a view to effecting improvements. The tragedy was that whereas it was decided to grant pensions to widows, the decision became effective only henceforth and not in retrospect, and thus it is that the very widows whose plight caused men to revolt are still without a police pension. Throughout the years, efforts have been made to get the position rectified, but without good result. As the years pass by so a number of unfortunate widows pass on without having received that little assistance which could have been so easily given by any Government, with so little effort and at such a small cost.
I do not want to embellish that any further, but I put it to the Committee,


as I put it to the House on the Second Reading, that this is a thing which any Government should now do. The number of widows in this category is now very small. The burden on the Treasury would be very small indeed, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to do something about it.
The second class of person to whom this Amendment is designed to apply, is that of the existing pensioners. As far as I can understand this Bill—and I have not the advantage of hon. and learned Members—it does not apply to existing pensioners. I would like the Home Secretary, while he is seeking to have more flexible powers, to take powers to deal with the position of the existing pensioners. There has recently been a tragic case which surely brings this matter to our minds. Only a short time ago a police constable was murdered on duty in particularly revolting circumstances, and at very short notice his wife and children have lost somebody on whom they previously depended. I would like to know whether the Home Secretary thinks that the provisions which now exist under the 1921 Act, plus the Pensions (Increase) Act, are adequate for this particular widow? It is unfortunate that it very often needs a tragic incident of this kind to throw into relief the plight of so many other widows, very often in similar but not such dramatic circumstances. I may be wrong, and, if I am, perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me, but my information is that the pension which will be awarded to this most unfortunate widow and her children in the circumstances of their loss will certainly not exceed £3 a week. It is for the Committee to decide in their own minds whether, in the tragic circumstances of this particular case—and there may be others—they think this sum is adequate.
12.30 p.m.
This Amendment is designed to cover that kind of case and also those cases of existing widows who are receiving a grossly unremunerative pension. There are many cases at the present time where police widows are receiving no more than the statutory pension of 11s. 6d. a week, plus 40 per cent. under the Pensions (Increase) Act—4s. 7d.—giving a total of 16s. 1d. I am informed that there are also wives of existing pensioners who, in the event of

widowhood, will receive something of that nature, a figure in the region of 11s. 6d. a week, to which the Pensions (Increase) Act will apply, subject to means test. I do not think the existing rates of pension payable to those who are now in the force—that is, to their widows if they die—are at all adequate. Whilst giving the Home Secretary powers—at least I think I am giving him powers under this Amendment—to deal with a particular category, I would like, and I am sure the Committee would like, some indication from him that the regulations he may be entitled to make will be on rather a more generous scale than appears to be envisaged so far in the White Paper.

Mr. Hale: I rise to support the Amendment, and I would say at once that I do not share the twice repeated doubts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Major Bruce) as to the effectiveness of my draftsmanship. We are giving the right hon. Gentleman precisely the power he wanted, and I observe with great pleasure that the Home Secretary himself has put down a later Amendment on the Order Paper, at the top of page row, which certainly seeks to extend his own powers in this connection. I think we shall find there is not a very great deal between us. It would be out of Order for me to comment on this later Amendment, or to refer to the other Amendment standing in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, which is going to help the right hon. Gentleman further upon his way, but I hope it may be permissible for me to say that the utility of our Amendment, of course in connection with the Amendment he himself carried a minute or two ago, is that it is directive, whereas his Amendment as to the later Clause is still only permissive. There is an important distinction in that fact which he may bear in mind.
Dealing with the pre-1918 widows, there is something almost macabre about the thought that we are now seeking to do this tardy justice to a very small and ever diminishing class—so small indeed that the actual cost to the nation would not be as much as the sacking of a single air vice-marshal. It is not that this is going to make a great deal of difference to them, because most of them are drawing some benefit from some other public funds, but at least it will give them


the satisfaction of tardy recognition, and something to which they have long been entitled. This will, I hope, coupled with the later Amendment we are seeking to move, secure for them a bigger meed of generosity.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Second Reading referred to this matter and I gathered from what he said then that the payments under the National Insurance Act to be made by new entrants to the police force will qualify their widows for a full widow's pension under that Act. I am very grateful for that, I apprehend there will be a qualifying period—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three years."]—and, therefore, there will be a gap in this matter for those policemen who have been debarred from the chance of insuring under any insurance Act up to now. Their widows will not qualify, in the event of the policemen's death between now and the completion of the qualification period, for benefits claimed under this Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman may say that the Amendment is itself covered by a later Amendment, but it might be convenient if we deal with the whole question of widows on this Amendment.

Mr. Grimston: While I am entirely neutral with regard to the draftsmanship of this Amendment, I rise to say briefly that I support the principle underlying it and I shall look forward to hearing what the Home Secretary has to say.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to add the voice of Scotland on this matter. I have authority—not officially—because I have been asked by the Retired Police Forces' Association of Scotland to put this point, among others. This is an Association which has grown very rapidly in the last year or two and it has grown because the men concerned are beginning to feel that something must be done and they are getting a very considerable measure of public support throughout Scotland. I am told the membership of the Association is now over 2,200 and, when the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind the relatively small number of policemen in Scotland, that is a testimony that this is a matter of great importance to these men.
Their concern, they tell me, is partly with the question of widows, and here

it seems to me there is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with his own later Amendment, to assure these men, and the widows that the widows of the past will really be taken into account. It is not necessary for me to develop this point, because it has been put very well by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. We have all been greatly moved by the incident of the last few days. This House cannot permit a national incident like that—because it has been a national incident—to pass without taking it into account, and the only proper way to take it into account is to ensure that the case of the unfortunate woman and her children shall be dealt with properly. We are living in an age when we are trying to bring comfort to the great mass of the citizens, and to improve their standard of life, and this particular class of person deserves the special attention of the House. I very warmly support the Amendment.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I wish to urge upon the Home Secretary the claim of these widows. Looking at the White Paper one notes the provision which it is intended to make for widows of existing policemen. I think, therefore, one is more apprehensive, as there is no reference in the White Paper to these pensions for the 1918 and pre-1918 widows and for widows of officers who have been killed or who have died in the service, when one sees that it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to put down certain Amendments of his own. I am very doubtful whether these Amendments are sufficient to meet the point.
Why should it have been necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts on this matter at all? When he introduced the Bill, did he have any intention of meeting the position of these elderly ladies? Was this really entirely a second thought on his part, or was he intending to do this in some other way, although it is not referred to in the White Paper? I am very much in support of his having the powers which it is intended should be given to him by the Amendment. It is not necessary to stress any further the plight in which these elderly ladies very often find themselves, but I think it should be mentioned that, in a


large proportion of the comparatively few cases that do exist, these widows will not be entitled to benefit under the National Insurance Scheme because they will fail to qualify for it, so that they will have nothing to rely on at all except such provision as may be made for them by this Bill or the regulations made under it. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to give some categorical and favourable assurance with regard to these matters.

Mr. Perrins: I want to focus my right hon. Friend's attention on two particular features. There are the pre-1918 cases for whom no provision was made. If my right hon. Friend by this Measure makes provision for them out of public funds he will also be saving on public funds. These pre-1918 widows have to live. It is a matter of concern to many of them that they have had to go to public assistance. What provision my right hon. Friend makes for them by this Measure out of public funds will be saved on other public funds.
The second feature is the real need of these people. Under the Act of 1918 the widows have a pension of £30 a year. By wartime provision made for them they receive another 4s. a week. For the sake of argument and simplicity, let us assume that they have £1 a week. The policeman's widow with £1 a week suffers much more hardship and inconvenience than other widows with a similar income. Widows usually are able to take over the tenancies of their husbands' houses. The law provides for a transfer of property to widows. Police widows, however, are placed in circumstances rather similar to those of the widows of agricultural workers, in that, on the death of their husbands, they are forced out of their houses, because the houses go with their husbands' jobs. I do not know much about what conditions are in this great City of London, but I know that it is extremely difficult in the provinces for widows to rent premises at less than 16s. or 17s. a week. I shall not labour the point further, because the case is a fairly obvious one. I do hope that it will be sympathetically considered by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked me some questions about the history of this matter. When I bring a Bill before the House of Commons I endeavour to listen

to the arguments that are adduced with regard to it. On the Measures I have introduced I have always shown myself willing to consider the arguments; and when the arguments have appeared strong I have always endeavoured to make what has seemed to me to be proper concession to the views of hon. Members, either in Committee or on Report stage. I listened to the arguments that were adduced a fortnight ago, and it was quite obvious that, in spite of what had happened subsequently to the Report of the Snell Committee, there was a feeling in the House of Commons that this matter ought to be dealt with. Therefore, I have endeavoured by an Amendment I have down, and to which reference has been made, to deal with it.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) are running a series of Amendments in cyclic order. I gather from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham that while there may be many voices, his is the hand which drafts.

Mr. Hale: There are certain Amendments down in that "cyclic order" for which I certainly do not take drafting responsibility.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend took responsibility for the drafting of this one. Unfortunately, I cannot, like the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) be impartial as to draftsmanship; and I am advised that this Amendment would not do what its movers seek to do. The wording does limit provision to the widows of persons who have died whilst serving as members of the Police Forces, and does not extend it to cases where the women's husbands have already retired; and consequently it is inconsistent with Clause 2 (1), which deals with application of the regulations. After all, the main plea—the emotional plea—has been for the pre-1918 widows, the widows of people who have died prior to the coming into force of the regulations which have not yet been drafted. I am anxious to take powers that will be as wide as possible, and I have put down an Amendment to Clause 2, an Amendment which, I am advised, would cover every policeman's widow existing at the time of the


passing of the Measure. I hope it will enable me to deal with widows between 1948 and 1951.

Mr. Renton: I think the right hon. Gentleman's statement has to be amplified to this extent, that it does not deal with the widows of policemen who married after retirement or who remarried after retirement.

Mr. Ede: I am not at this stage going to argue my Amendment to Clause 2. That would be going too far. What I am trying to point out is that the Amendment now before the Committee would not, in fact, achieve the objects my hon. Friends have in view. I suggest that we shall find when we come to my Amendment that, at any rate, it covers all the points so far as my having powers is concerned. I would suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should be withdrawn. When we come to my Amendment I shall have an opportunity of indicating its range and scope.

Major Bruce: I would point out to my right hon. Friend that I claim only credit for the inspiration of the Amendment, not the drafting. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. William Wells): I call the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) to move the next Amendment, in page 2, line 21. I would suggest that this later Amendment, and the proposed new Schedule (Scales of Pensions), could very conveniently be discussed at the same time.

Mr. Grimston: In view of the undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman gave a short while ago, that he was going to look into the possibility of putting a statutory bottom into the provisions, I would not propose at this stage to move the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Gentleman would formally move his Amendment it would give me an opportunity to make a statement.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the scale of pensions made in any such regulations shall not fall below the rates provided in the Schedule (Scales of Pensions) to this Act

Mr. Ede: I am obliged to the hon. Member for meeting my convenience in this matter. At the moment a committee of the Police Council is considering the issue raised in the proposed Schedule. As will be seen from the Schedule, a complicated piece of Parliamentary work is involved in dealing with the problem. I am informed that the report of that committee is likely to be received fairly soon, and that it will recommend certain improvements in the scale. One of the difficulties of putting the scale into the Bill would be that, when the Bill is passed we should need another Bill to carry out the improvements which I anticipate will be recommended. While the hon. Member will understand that what I said on his previous Amendment governs my relationship to this Amendment, there is an even stronger reason for not getting this matter stereotyped in the Bill at the present moment.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: As the Committee has undoubtedly noticed, there is a remarkable, no doubt coincidental, similarity between the proposed Schedule on the Order Paper and the Schedule in the appendix to the White Paper. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether it is still his intention, notwithstanding what he has said, to introduce by regulation the Schedule in the White Paper, or whether he will leave the whole matter over, and subsequently introduce a regulation covering whatever proposals the committee may report, and which he may accept?

Mr. Ede: It will all depend on the date of the report. Obviously, it will be necessary to have regulations re-enacting the existing Schedule if no report has been made at that time. If the report is received between now and the publication of the regulations I might be able to include the recommended Schedule in lieu of the one now found in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. It is all a question of timing. There will be a Schedule, so nobody will lose his rights merely because, for a few weeks or months, no scale of entitlement has been published.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the Home Secretary. I think this falls within the undertaking he gave, and which I need not repeat.

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Grimston: When I put down this Amendment I realised that these negotiations were taking place, and I anticipated there would be a difficulty here for that reason. Provided that between now and Report the Home Secretary will, as he says, examine the question of giving some sense of security that future conditions shall not be worse than they are, I am perfectly content to let the matter rest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from "provision" to "as" in line 26.
I have put my name to an Amendment which was put down by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and his hon. Friends, as an indication that we accept it. It is necessary to make this Amendment in order to clear the ground for discussion later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where—

(a) a pension or allowance after being granted has subsequently in pursuance of this Act been declared to have been forfeited; or
(b) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act, and the police authority do not admit the claim; or
(c) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act larger than that granted to that person;

the person aggrieved may apply to the police authority for a re-consideration of the case, and, if aggrieved by the decision upon such re-consideration, may apply to the next praticable court of quarter sessions for the county within which the member of a police force concerned last served, or if he last served in the police force, of a borough having a separate police force and a separate court of quarter sessions, then to the next practicable court of quarter sessions for that borough, and that court, after inquiry into the case, may make such order in the matter as appears to the court just; but nothing in this section shall confer a right to appeal against the exercise of any discretion, or against any decision which is declared by this Act to be final.
(5) An appeal shall lie on a point of law from any decision of quarter sessions under this section to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and the decision of the High Court shall be final, but in all other respects the decision of quarter sessions shall be final.
As the Committee will have seen, the Home Secretary has put down a proposed

new Clause {Appeals). I am very glad to note that he has met the wish expressed on Second Reading, that the right of appeal should be put into the Statute. The provisions contained in our Amendment have been lifted out of the present Act. The question, therefore, resolves itself into this: We both seek to do the same thing, and the question at issue is the method. Having gained the principle that the appeals are to be written into the statute, I have no very strong feeling about the method, but I formally move this Amendment because, before making up my mind, I should like to hear the Home Secretary's explanation of why his proposed Clause is a better method of achieving our object than that contained in the present Act. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, the Home Secretary might be allowed to explain the difference. I am sure that would be agreeable to us all.

Mr. Ede: In this matter our respective objects are the same, but there are certain points in which the hon. Member's Amendment is defective when compared with the proposals contained in the new Clause which stands in my name—(Appeals). This Bill repeats Section 17 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. For instance, the Amendment makes no provision for specifying which is the appropriate quarter sessions in the case of the Metropolitan Police Force and the City of London Police Force. Obviously, these are drafting points which only a Government draftsman can really pick up. The Amendment does not deal with the complication of the force established under the Police (Overseas Service) Act. It provides that there should he no right of appeal against decisions made under the Act, which are declared to be final. It omits any application to Scotland, and makes no provision for dealing with medical appeals. I suggest that in those particulars the new Clause which I have drafted and put on the Order Paper makes the necessary amendment to this Bill in adequate terms. I am accepting the principle of the points raised in the discussion we had a fortnight ago, and I suggest that it would be better if this Amendment were withdrawn, and we had our discussion on the issue when we reached the new Clause.

Mr. Stubbs: Why should a policeman who is drawing his pension be punished


because he commits some offence contrary to the regulations? That principle applies nowhere else. The man is drawing a pension for which he has paid, and to which lie is entitled. Why should he forfeit that pension because he does not comply with the regulations? That principle applies in no other direction, and I do not see why it should apply here.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend must remember that the policeman is not the only person who suffers forfeiture if he contravenes the conditions under which the pension has been granted. A policeman is in a very advantageous position in regard to pension as compared with most other members of the community. He is also in possession, as a result of his professional life, of a great deal of information about his fellow citizens, and it is very necessary to ensure that this information shall not be disclosed when he leaves the Force to the detriment of all concerned. I would also point out that the number who suffer forfeiture of pension under the existing law is very small indeed compared with the total number of pensioners. It is essential to have powers to deal very severely with any departure from the standards we have a right to expect from ex-Members of these Forces.

Sir Peter Bennett: I take exception to one remark which was made, and that is that a man has paid for his pension. That is not the case. He pays for only part of his pension, and the other part comes from public funds. That point should be borne in mind when statements of that sort are made.

Mr. Grimston: In view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(7) The application of this Act to the City of London police force shall not prejudice any right possessed at the date of the passing of this Act by any member of that force.
I have been advised that as the Bill stands the rights of members of the City of London Police Force may be prejudiced. I can best illustrate this by quot-

ing an example. It is the case of a superintendent in the City of London Police Force. It appears that his pension will be considerably reduced under this Bill if he remains in the Force after the appointed day and retires or is retired unfit before September, 1950. Under Section II of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1920, he had the right to a pension of two-thirds of his pay after 36 years service, without any qualification as to the three years' average pay basis. By Section 26 (4) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, this right was amended. He could have elected to have the latter Act applied to him, and if he had done so, he would have had to serve 30 years for the full two-thirds pension, and be subject to the three years' average pay basis.
This man decided to remain under the City of London (Various Powers) Act, at that time realising that he was running the risk that if he were retired unfit he would not be entitled to a pension until he had completed 15 years' service, whereas under the 1921 Act he would have received a pension after 10 years' service. In a case where a man has survived this risk, he cannot now, under this Bill, have the fruits of the decision he took at that time. This Bill will deprive him of his "winnings," to use a metaphor. It may be that this is provided for in the Schedule, but I have put down the Amendment to show that a man is obviously being unjustly treated if he is deprived of rights which he now possesses and only possesses because he took a deliberate risk in acquiring them some years ago. This Amendment was incorporated in the 1921 Act specifically to preserve the right of members of the City of London Police Force. Perhaps the Home Secretary will have a look at this again to ensure that these rights are preserved.

Mr. Ede: I think the case which has been quoted is covered by the undertaking given that we shall preserve all the rights which were in existence on 28th July, 1921. We know of the case, and provision is to be made in the regulations to cover it. The words of this Amendment have been lifted out of the old Act. They were inserted in that Act to cover a very different matter. They were inserted to safeguard the position of the then City Commissioner who was drawing a pension from Liverpool, and they had the


accidental effect of preserving the rights of other members of the City of London Police Force. The City Commissioner had a pension from Liverpool, and he did not want anything to be altered in that respect by the provisions of the 1921 Act. I do not think it is necessary to put in these words, but I will have the position examined again. So far as the payments are concerned, they will be governed by the pledge I gave earlier in the Debate, because if it is a case where man's position will be worsened, then it comes within that category.

Mr. Grimston: I raised this case, which is an exceptional one, because I did not wish a case of hardship, however small, to slip through. In view of the general and specific assurances of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Subsection (7), and to add:
(7) No regulations shall be made under this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
I do not wish to detain the Committee on this Amendment, because the Home Secretary has already indicated that he will adopt this procedure. The principle has been accepted, and it is now a matter of machinery.

Mr. Ede: I have given an undertaking in regard to this matter. This Amendment does not take into account the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, and it will therefore be necessary to put in some words to cover that point. I undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage to carry out my pledge, which will also take that Act into account.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Home Secretary has come a good way in accepting the affirmative Resolution procedure, and I am certain that Members on both sides of the Committee are very pleased that he has done so. But there is still a difficulty which will arise, at any rate when the major regulations are tabled. Under this procedure there is no means of Members who feel strongly about a particular regulation having any chance of amending it. May I put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman: that when it is

intended to table the first major set of regulations some procedure should be devised—possibly by means of a Debate on the Adjournment—to enable opinion in the House to crystallise on particular points before it is too late for Amendments to be considered. When the regulations are actually tabled there is no possibility of amending them.
Looking at the White Paper, it is quite clear that there are many points which Members on both sides will want to discuss. They may want to move Amendments on some of the regulations without wishing to take upon themselves the responsibility of moving the rejection of them all, most of which they will probably think very good. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to produce a general innovation in Parliamentary procedure—although I would like to urge that upon him on an appropriate occasion—but to discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of providing a Debate, in advance of the formal motion to approve the regulations, so that opinions can be expressed on particular points in time for him to consider them and, possibly, incorporate them in the regulations. That, I admit, is a poor second best, but it is a second best. I am a little alarmed at the possibility of regulations being dumped upon the Table, and being faced with the alternative of throwing them out altogether when all we might wish to do is to amend a small paragraph. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some encouragement on these lines, and will consider giving the House a chance of urging detailed Amendments.

Mr. Ede: In vain is the snare set in sight of any bird. I sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member. I often felt as he does when I sat on the other side of the Table, and I met with surprisingly little sympathy from those who then sat on this side when I urged the point which he had just made. I desire, in this matter, to ascertain the general view of the House; it may not be possible to do it in the form in which he suggests it should be done, and I can give no promise that that can be done, but I will seriously consider any representations made to me before the regulations are drafted, and while they are being drafted. How far it will he possible to provide for a discussion other than the normal one is not for me


to say, but I invite any Member who is interested in this matter to make representations in the light of the White Paper, which is virtually the first draft, in non-technical language, of the regulations. It indicates points that will be raised, and the spirit in which they will receive attention. If anyone likes to communicate with me about any point raised in the White Paper I undertake to give it impartial consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and it might be helpful if he could say how much time there will be available for representations to be made to him. If he could give a hint of the date by which he proposes to table the regulations I believe it would be helpful.

Mr. Ede: I want them to become effective not later than 5th July. That is the latest date. I undertake to give consideration to any point submitted to me between, let us say, now and Easter. I hope that that will enable me to receive representations while the regulations are still in a fluid state.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put his finger on one of the difficulties in our procedure in connection with regulations. There is no doubt that having the affirmative procedure is a great advantage. It means that the Government, through the Business which they announce each week, will have to make the matter more widely known; people will know that there is to be a discussion about it, instead of having to rely on someone hunting through the Order Paper to see whether a Member intends to pray against a certain statutory rule and order. This is more likely to give the impression that Parliament has a tighter hold on the matter than the other procedure. Whether or not that is so—and I believe it is—the impression will be conveyed. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the form which this Amendment takes in connection with the Statutory Instruments Act, and his undertaking to introduce proper words on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Bruce: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
(8) Any regulations made under this section shall provide that any pension or additional allowance granted by virtue thereof shall not be subject to any diminution by reason of the recipient or intended recipient thereof having any other source of income.
It would perhaps be prudent on this occasion to put forward a modest disclaimer in regard to the legal draftsmanship of this Amendment. It is designed to remove what has become known in ordinary circles as a means test in relation to an existing pension. I am advised that any increases to which police widows may become entitled under the Pensions (Increase) Act are subject to a means test, that is to say, that although a widow is not debarred from receiving the normal basic pension to which she is entitled under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, nevertheless, any increase in pension is prejudiced by her earning more than a certain sum. The majority of widows in this category are of working age, and we feel that in the circumstances now obtaining a means test—and I do not wish to use the term in a sinister fashion—should be abolished.
While we were discussing the last Amendment there was an interjection from the Opposition benches by an hon. Gentleman who was concerned that the sentiment should have been expressed on this side of the Committee that there was a certain entitlement to pension, a certain inalienable right to pension, because the person concerned had earned it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be dismayed about that, but it should be borne in mind that pensions under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and any pensions which may be enacted hereafter, are all part of the conditions of service, and have to be taken into account within a much wider context. The total remuneration of a person employed in the Police Force consists of a weekly wage and allowances and the pension is an ingredient in his overall remuneration during his working life. It is a fact that the Home Secretary considered earlier in the proceedings today, that the members of the Police Force accept lower rates of remuneration for the ordinary work they do than are obtainable in outside industry.

Mr. Ede: I did not admit that. I said that in former days the police service had


certain great advantages in receiving pensions at an early age which other people did not have. That comparative advantage has now very largely disappeared.

Major Bruce: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument for the abolition of former conditions which, in some circumstances, impose a means test. He said earlier today that the conditions in the Police Force, by reason of which wages remained static, whereas wages in industry had gone up, placed the police in an unfavourable position in certain instances.

Mr. Ede: I did not get on to the question of wages. I was dealing with the conditions that at one time sharply differentiated policemen from most other people earning about the same incomes, and I pointed out that owing to the improved social services this no longer existed.

Major Bruce: That does not detract from my point.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and gallant Friend is claiming that I made the point. He is making the point. He is not entitled to claim that I made it earlier today when I did not.

Major Bruce: I apologise if I have misrepresented my right hon. Friend. I think that the policeman has a moral right to regard his pension as something which should become his own, and which he has part-earned during his service. It should not be mitigated by reason of the ultimate beneficiary being able to earn an income from outside. There are wives of existing pensioners. Their position calls for consideration under this Amendment. The Pensions (Increase) Act if applied to the wife will also mean that, if her husband is not an insured person under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or has not the opportunity to become eligible, her increase is subject to a means test. These are anomalies which should be removed.

Mr. Hale: I support the Amendment. I express regret for any diversionary attacks which I may have made on the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions in connection with the police force. I am reminded of the learned judge who was asked if he ever doubted. He said, "No, I never doubt. I am frequently wrong, but I never doubt." I am occasionally wrong, but I never doubt. I submit that on this occasion I am not wrong. As a

party we have been opposed to any question of a means test. We have confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's enlightenment on these matters, so there is little we require to say on an issue like this. He protected himself in advance from the attack that some of these payments are made by virtue of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act and not paid under these regulations. This Amendment may not meet the situation we desire it to meet, but when one drafts an Amendment on the Order Paper in Committee in vacuo without regard to the type of regulation that may emerge, all one can hope to do is to put the issue before the right hon. Gentleman and rely on his kindness. We know that if he is prepared to accept it in principle, he will provide the necessary lettering to embrace all the issues concerned. This is an issue which will not cost much money. It raises a matter of real importance, of genuine sentiment and is a very definite Socialist issue.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment would have one effect with which neither its proposer nor its supporter has dealt. It prevents the carrying through of the main purpose of the Bill, namely, to make a difference in the scale of police pensions when the National Insurance Scheme comes into effect. One effect of the Amendment may be that a person may claim to pay a decreased contribution and when the time comes to draw benefit quote this Amendment to prove that he is entitled to the full benefit. That, I am sure, is not the intention of my hon. Friends. That is fatal to the Amendment. I do not think it would be fair to deal in this Bill with the general question under the Pensions (Increase) Act. If the police were dealt with in this way, there is no reason why other people, such as postmen and teachers, whose pensions are subject to the workings of the Pensions (Increase) Act should not also he dealt with in the same way.

Mr. Hale: I am prepared to give an undertaking that my hon. Friends and I will watch all Bills dealing with these matters and move similar Amendments.

Mr. Ede: That is precisely what I feared. This is a point that should not be argued with me but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Stubbs: Why not make a start now.

Mr. Ede: I am not able to accept the Amendment on the lines advocated. I regret that it is not possible for me to say more in reply to the Amendment.

Mr. Byers: I would ask the Home Secretary to look at the situation into which we are getting over the question of the means test. That is not only a Socialist issue but also a Liberal issue. I suggest that we shall be met with this argument every time that we put forward this suggestion. I can see the Minister of Education saying, "We cannot accept this because if we do we should have to do the same for the police." Have the Government given serious consideration to the general issue raised, which is in line with this particular issue? It does not just affect the police. It affects teachers, civil servants and many others. Has this matter been considered by the Cabinet? If not, is it not time that it was? Are we to be met with this refusal departmentally every time we suggest that a start should be made with this issue? It is time that we had a clear-cut decision of principle on the point raised by hon. Members opposite. I would press strongly for its reconsideration. I have always been against this particular type of means test.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry to detain the Committee further, but I am anxious not to challenge a Division on this particular issue, because my right hon. Friend was so accommodating in giving us other concessions for which we asked. At the same time, it is idle to deny that on this issue some of us feel very keenly and sincerely. I would be grateful to my right hon. Friend if between now and the Report stage he would apply his mind to the one problem which is raised here. I appreciate the difficulties, but the problem is the payment of supplementary allowances. We have got to the time when we begin to use euphemisms to cover the real facts. A distressed area becomes a special area, unemployment pay becomes benefit, and a cost of living allowance becomes a special allowance. The point of this Amendment was to bring a meagre pension of no up to more generous proportions which would meet the increased cost of living. If that is now to be reduced because of another source of income it is fundamentally antagonistic to our principles on this side of the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates these points and will give them consideration.

Mr. Ede: I am hoping that as a result of powers which I will be taking later on the £30 pension will be a considerably larger pension. I cannot undertake that on this Measure I shall interfere with a Measure which was passed only last year dealing with increases in these statutory pensions. I am hoping by this way to get round the point my hon. Friend put to me with regard to these specific pensions, and I hope it will result in making them more generous pensions.

Mr. Gallacher: As I came in I heard the Home Secretary referring to the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Would not he consider having a talk with the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see if something could be done on this question, because there is a very strong feeling whenever the matter of the employment of a means test arises. It would be very good of the Home Secretary if he would say he was prepared to have a talk with those colleagues of his to see if something could not be done in this particular Bill to eliminate the possibility of a means test.

Mr. Ede: I cannot be used as a stalking horse for the Treasury. I have endeavoured to get round the particular issue in the way I have indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has expressed, in flattering terms, his views of my generosity, and I might find myself in a difficulty if someone said to me, "You have given one concession, and I ought to have the other as well."

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
(8) Any pension payable to a dependent widow of any person who shall die or shall have died while serving as a member of a police force shall be at a rate of not less than such widow would receive under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, if her husband had been a fully insured person under the provisions of that Act.
The purpose of this Amendment is to try to get some more elucidation. We felt that the time had come when there had to be some basic minimum below which no pension should go. It seems to us that the obvious figure was the basic minimum of the National Insurance Act. I do not want to give the impression that my right hon. Friend has changed his mind, but the Act originally did envisage


more generosity in these matters. Our suggestion is that this has quite a number of advantages. Firstly, it goes far to wipe out the rather marked anomalies between pensions in the variation of rank; and, secondly, it seeks to bring other pensions up to that basic figure which we regard as the low minimum, and below which no pension should go.

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that this Amendment does not cover all the cases I want to cover. It is limited to the case where the husband dies while serving as a member of the Police Force, and the widow of a man who died after retirement will not benefit. All widows in the future will be entitled to appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act or the Industrial Injuries Act and to a police pension as well, but the Amendment does not say anything about a widow's benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. In regard to that case it can only mean that in addition to getting the appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act she will receive the same benefit from the Police Fund. That is to say, she will receive a duplicate benefit from two sources.

Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend must remember that we have never had the full details of how the National Insurance Scheme will work on a part-time basis, and whether a higher sum will be payable from that fund or the Police Pension Fund. I rather suspect my right hon. Friend of having used the argument against me in two different ways in connection with these two Clauses.

Mr. Ede: That is part of my difficulty. My Amendment is down to a later Clause, and if I start explaining that on Clause I might find that it will be ruled that the discussion has already taken place. I am trying to preserve for my hon. Friend as well as myself opportunity for a full discussion when we get to the Amendment that I have put down to Clause 2. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that what I have put down is so wide in its scope that it will enable most of the things that are in the spirit of this Amendment to be done, whereas, in fact, this Amendment—I am not complaining about it or attempting to make fun of my hon. Friend —by its very wording and the position it occupies in the Bill would impose some limitations on the action I propose to take under Clause 2, and would work to

the detriment of the pensioners. That is the objection I have to this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw it so that we can deal with the whole issue on the appropriate Amendment to Clause 2.

Mr. Hale: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. My right hon. Friend's Amendment was added to the Order Paper after ours and we did not see it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Grimston: I do not want to detain the Committee very long, but the Home Secretary was suggesting just now that representation with regard to the regulations should be made between now and Easter. This is not an occasion for making representation on small points, but there is one which I want to mention. The regulations envisage that serving officers will be able to choose whether they shall go on paying their full contributions and receiving their present rates of pension, or whether they shall have them partly reduced on the coming into force of the National Insurance Act. In the former case they shall get both benefits in full. The Home Secretary is proposing that the new entrants shall not have that choice, but shall only come in on the basis of paying a reduced contribution, which will be the National Insurance contribution, and the whole pension that they can get is to be the sum of the two but not much greater, if anything, than the police used to get under the Police Pension Fund.
I have had representations made to me that it is not altogether correct to say that it is the general view that new entrants would prefer that course, because otherwise they would be called upon to make too large a contribution for pension out of their pay. I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should again consider whether to give the option to new entrants after the date, as well as to existing members of the Force, at any rate, to see how it works. It may be open to argument whether we shall have men serving in the same station on different scales of pension according to the way in which they have opted. We shall get that, anyway, and that argument is not valid against giving


some option to new entrants. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to consider the matter again. It has been represented strongly to me that there is considerable feeling that police officers should be able, if they wish, to opt for both pensions. There are other small points in regard to the entrance age under 20. We shall also have a further opportunity of discussing the position of the widows. I do not propose to go into either point at the moment. I should be very grateful if the Home Secretary would give further consideration to those points which I have particularly mentioned.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I certainly undertake to give consideration to the matter, but no one can really speak for the new entrant because we do not know who he will be. It is true that for a time, people will be on different rates of pensions but they will steadily work out of the Force. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might permanently be in the Force people drawing different rates of weekly pay actually put into their hands, and ultimately entitled to different rates of pension. I will consider the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of regulations.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert:
and also so as to authorise or require the payment of pensions or increased pensions to widows and children of persons dying before the said date (whether before or after the passing of this Act) where the deceased had been a member of a police force and, in the case of a widow, where the marriage was in existence when he ceased (whether on death or otherwise) to be a member thereof.
This Amendment embodies the result of the consideration that I have given to representations that were made to me with regard to police widows. Originally, the provision for police widows was better than the provision made for ordinary widows in the country. Therefore, the Police Force was exempted from making contributions under the ordinary scheme. Recent legislation has put the non-police widow into a better position than the police widow. We feel that it is undesirable that that state of affairs should continue.
1.45 p.m.
It is proposed here that we should make regulations to enable police authorities to increase the pensions of police widows and children whose husbands or fathers have died before the appointed day up to the rates of benefit for widows and children of insured persons. It is desired to make it clear that supplementation will be kept closely in step with the benefits of the National Insurance Scheme. We shall normally expect that there will be consultation between police authorities and local officers of the Ministry of National Insurance. There will be power to make some regulation in the case of widows of men who die between 5th July next and 5th July, 1951, during which time the widows would not otherwise get the benefit of their husbands' payments into the National Insurance Scheme.
Generally, it is our idea that the pension that will be payable should be equivalent to that provided under the National Insurance Act but the pension that we pay may in some cases mean bringing up another pension to the minimum of the National Insurance pension. I hope that the House will feel that in taking the wide powers for which I am asking here I have fully met the spirit of the discussion of a fortnight ago.
With regard to the question that was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) about the widow of Constable Edgar whose funeral I attended yesterday, the pension she will receive is one-third of her husband's pay plus one-fifteenth for each of the children up to the time when they pass beyond the benefit age. I am sure I will carry the Committee with me when I say that we all recognise that this man died in the performance of a public duty very nobly performed. I would like to point out in addition that, at the time, this constable was not in uniform. I do not want to say anything that might prejudice proceedings elsewhere, but it was a fate that might have overtaken any one of us who might similarly have attempted to prevent a man from getting away from a scene of attempted crime. I hope that in saying that I have not gone beyond what it is permissible to say. I am sure that the whole Committee will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the widow in that fate.

Major Bruce: My right hon. Friend has given us the method of calculation of the pension. Could he give us the figures, the actual amount?

Mr. Ede: It is very difficult to do that. The man was on an incremental scale, and was above the minimum. If I started o give figures I should have to say "about so much." [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on."] am not going to make guesses in a case of this kind. The question of what ought to be done for widows of men who lose their lives on duty really calls for consideration. I want to make it clear that when I talk about the National Insurance standard being set, that does not apply now, and certainly so far as I am concerned, never would apply, to the case of a widow who lost her husband in the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman said that the widow in this case would get one-third of the pay as pension. In the White Paper there is a scale of 45/60ths for anybody suffering a similar fate, and that seems much more generous than the one-third which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Is it possible that when the Bill becomes law the pension which is now one-third can be increased to something similar to that which is shown in the White Paper?

Mr. Ede: That is what a man gets if he is disabled. It is not what the widow gets. Sometimes I wonder whether hints that I drop are really understood by hon. Members. I had hoped that, in the references just made, I indicated that this particular type of case was one which I thought deserved consideration.

Mr. Grimston: I am glad that the Home Secretary has been able to put down this Amendment, and from what he says I think the powers which he has taken should be wide enough to cover the various cases. I am a little unhappy about one case which is in no way referred to in the Bill, the case of a man who has been in the Force for some time. I take it that under the proposals, if anything happens to him, either accidentally or in circumstances such as the tragic case the other day, whether he was on or off duty, his widow would, in future, get only the sixth of the annuity because the rest is to be made up from National Insurance. That man has been contributing for a number of years for his widow to get

the whole amount and in a case of that kind it would seem to operate unfairly.
I am not at all sure that the revision of pensions, in those sort of cases, should not be looked at with a view to an upward tendency, in spite of the impact of National Insurance. I believe that the intent is that the combination of the two should not be less than the amount of the old pension, but, in such circumstances, if a man is killed in the execution of his duty, it is very likely that he will be a youngish man, and that there will be children to be educated. We do not want to be niggardly in the award of police pensions because of the National Insurance scheme to which every one has to contribute. I hope that, when the regulalations are considered, there will be representation on this point, and that the Home Secretary will look with a very sympathetic eye on the tenor of the remarks I have made with regard to the compensation for widows. I think I am right in saying that, in any case, the powers he has undertaken under this Amendment are wide enough to enable him to do something on the lines which I have suggested.

Mr. Renton: I welcome this Amendment, so far as it goes, but I am surprised and sorry that the Home Secretary has limited himself to this extent. One result of this limitation of powers which he proposes for himself is that it will not he possible for him to provide a pension for a widow, should the marriage take place after the retirement of the police officer, or, in the case of a police officer who marries more than once, where the re-marriage takes place after the retirement of the officer. I am surprised, because in paragraph 52 of the Snell Committee's Report it is recommended that the disqualification to which I have referred should be removed.
It should be borne in mind that many policemen retire at about middle age. They retire very often at a younger age than do other people. It must therefore, happen frequently that they marry after retirement. The case of a re-marriage is one which, I suggest, deserves special consideration, because the policeman has, throughout his career in the Force, been paying contributions for the widowhood of one wife, who unfortunately dies. It seems very unfair on his second wife that she should be debarred from the benefits which the first wife would have enjoyed. I should have thought that there


should be a kind of doctrine of succession in this matter, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that. He may recollect that, over two years ago, I put down a Question, and had correspondence about this matter. It is due to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that I was able to refer just now, when he was out of the Committee, to paragraph 52 of the Report of the Snell Committee.
That Committee referred to the possibility arising, if such a pension were acquired, of what they described as "a death-bed marriage." They also suggested a way of overcoming that possibility. They suggested that if there was a child of the marriage, or if the marriage had taken place at least three years before the death of the retired policeman, then a widow's pension should be payable. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—as has no doubt been pointed out to him by those who made representations in the past—that a widow in this position had no benefit under the National Health Insurance Act. We have also to bear in mind that, for a number of years to come, she will have no benefit under National Insurance either, for the simple reason that she will not become qualified in time to receive benefit.
I ask most seriously that the Home Secretary consider this matter before the Report stage. In view of the very clear and strong recommendation of the Snell Committee I do not think that we should take "No" for an answer on this point without some very clear enlightenment and some strong reason why the Snell Committee's recommendation should not be accepted. Although I shall support this Amendment, because one welcomes it as far as it goes, I should, for those reasons, be glad of some further enlightenment.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken these powers under this Amendment. I only hope that they are wide enough. I believe that this question of widows' pensions is the whole difficulty, and the real point of the present grievances in the Police Forces. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to give the widows a fair deal and remove a great many genuine grievances. It will also help to secure the further recruits, so necessary at the present time.
One of the things that deters a policeman, who may be a married man with a large family, is that if anything happens to him, such as happened to the police officer the other day, his wife and children will be left in very great difficulties. As has been mentioned by one hon. Member, his widow and children might be faced with the prospect of having to leave a police house and of finding further accommodation. Policemen have very dangerous duties to perform. Motor patrols chase car bandits at 80 or go miles an hour through the streets of our cities, passing traffic lights, and encountering other dangers. They take a chance every time they go out on duty. I believe that in the future we shall have flying police. I know that that is not a point which arises in discussing the merits of this Bill, but it does illustrate the increased risk which a policeman must take in the course of his ordinary duties.
With regard to the police constable who was brutally murdered the other day, I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman made the point that the man was in plain clothes, and that any of us might be in the same position and have a duty to try and apprehend someone about to commit a breach of the peace. I understood that this officer was attached to the C.I.D., and was acting in the course of his duty, but I gathered from the Home Secretary that that was not so. The point is, however, that any police officer, whether on duty or not, has always the duty to try to apprehend such a person. I hope that the Home Secretary, when he deals with this question of pensions for widows, will do his best to give them a fair deal, and will enable police officers, who are honestly and diligently doing their duty, to feel that, if anything does happen to them, their families will be looked after.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am very pleased the Home Secretary has taken this power in this Amendment, because, recently, I was speaking to leading officials of the Police Force in my part of the country, and one of the great difficulties confronting them at the present time is how to get the required manpower. They drew attention to the fact that, in most industries, the pay was better and pension schemes were being introduced, apart


from the National Insurance Act, and that these things provided attractions which made it very difficult for the police authorities to keep their forces properly staffed. The power that is being taken here by the Home Secretary to provide pensions for widows and children of the police should be of very great advantage in this direction.
In regard to the tragic affair that took place the other day, I know that this is a generous gesture which the Home Secretary has made towards the widow and children, but, in my opinion, it is not generous enough. Unfortunately, we have always been very reluctant to increase pensions and allowances to the dependants of those who die in battle, and that may have its effect in cases of this kind. I think that, where a young man in the prime of life who is doing his duty for the civilian population of this country, meets such a tragic end, something more than one-third of his wages being paid to his widow should be considered by the Home Secretary. I know, of course, that, taking all things into account and what is generally considered suitable in all sorts of other cases, it is a generous gesture by the Home Secretary, but I wish he would give it further consideration. As this particular police constable came from my constituency, I should like to convey my deepest condolences to the widow and family of this young man.
I hope the Home Secretary will give this matter further consideration on general principles, and that the utmost generosity will be shown by the Home Office, so that they may be able to set an example that will encourage the Ministry of Pensions to give greater consideration to this question

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go so much into the details of particular cases. I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to complete his sentence, which was a rather extended one. Mr. Symonds.

Mr. Symonds: In view of the wide terms of the Amendment moved by the Home Secretary, one has every hope that, at long last, widows may be adequately provided for. There is only one point which I should like to make. My right hon. Friend said, in the case of widows whose husbands have died in connection with their duties, there might he a particular provision, and he gave a

hint that the terms may be very generous. I would like to suggest that the widow of any policeman, whether he dies in the ordinary course of events or as the result of something which happened during the course of his duties, is, in a sense, a special person. The Home Secretary said that the provisions, generally, would be roughly in line with those of the National Insurance Act. I certainly hope that they will not be any less generous and I have every hope that they may, perhaps, be a little more generous.
The wife of a policeman, particularly in the rural areas, has a job to do which is not in any way recognised officially but is definitely there. In fact, I would say that, in the rural areas, a policeman's wife is an unpaid, unofficial assistant policeman. Although the policeman himself is almost always on duty, he is not always available at the particular place where he may be wanted, which is the police station, and his wife, being there, finds herself regularly called upon to do jobs which are, in a sense, those of an assistant policeman. In view of the fact that a policeman's wife is essentially involved with her husband's duties, I hope the fact that she has contributed towards her husband's efficiency will be remembered when the terms of pension are taken into account.

Mr. Stubbs: I want to support the Amendment, which, like the curate's egg, is good in parts. I must confess that I do not know what is meant by the words:
where the marriage was in existence when he ceased (whether on death or otherwise) to be a member thereof.
Does that mean when he retired or ceased to be a policeman? He cannot be a member of the police after he is dead, and I am not quite clear what this phrase really means, and it seems to me that it is badly drafted. In regard to the pensioner remarrying and again becoming a widow, does she, in that case, receive the pension? If the answer is in the negative, I submit that it will cause hardship on that woman, and that hardship ought to be removed.
In the case of other widows, I think we have gone a long way to remove what I would call a national scandal in the way in which widows have been treated, because of the fact that the husband was a policeman and outside the National Insurance Scheme. As he did not contribute


to that scheme, it came down to a miserable pension for the widow of us. 6d., plus 4s. 7d., making a total of 16s. 1d. When we take into account the cost of living in these days, how these people have kept going all this time is a matter for wonder. It is the case that they have often had to seek public assistance or relief from the rates, because no satisfactory arrangement has been made for the widows of police pensioners.
We who are members of watch committees, or, in my case, the Standing Joint Committee of my county, are fully sensitive to the difficulties which are being experienced in keeping police forces up to standard. Both in boroughs and counties, we are very short of police, and recruits are not coming in at the necessary rate to keep both town and country well policed. A lot of crime is arising at the moment out of the fact that police forces are not up to standard, and we have to take note of the fact that one of the causes is the failure of young and suitable men to come forward as recruits to the police forces.
I hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will go a long way towards removing the grievances from which the police force has been suffering for a very long time. I believe it is true to say that policemen are less concerned about their wages than about their conditions of employment. Housing plays a large part in the question of recruitment. Because housing conditions are so bad and the men cannot be properly housed, there is the greatest difficulty in keeping the force up to standard. While I very much welcome this Amendment, I still feel that there is room for improvement.

Mr. Ede: I wish to thank the Committee for the way in which this Amendment has generally been received. I acknowledge, of course, that people will wait until they see the regulations made under it before they express a final opinion. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that in future a widow, in the position of the lady to whom we have been referring in this discussion, would, in fact, be rather better off than under the existing law.
I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) said about the effect of this grievance of the widows on the

state of contentment in the force. It has undoubtedly been a cause of serious discontentment, and I hope that this Amendment, and the regulations I shall make under it, will enable that discontent to be removed. I am also convinced that it is a bad advertisement for the Police Force for it to be known, particularly in a village where everybody's business is known, that a certain impecunious widow is, in fact, the widow of a former police officer. That is the kind of thing that any man, and, particularly, any man's sweetheart or wife, bears in mind when he thinks of joining the Police Force. I hope this Amendment will enable us to remove that cause of discontent, and all that flows from it.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), the Snell Report was of course, written before the National Insurance Scheme had even been considered. Therefore, the present position must be viewed in the light of today, before we star applying that Report, and before we take it into account. I cannot think it would be right to give a man who has left the police force, and who is either single or a widower, the additional attraction in the marriage market of conferring on the lady of his choice—or, as it might more likely be, the lady who chooses him—in addition to her benefits under the National Insurance Scheme, a police pension for having looked after, in his old age, a man who had been a police officer, but who, during the time of her relationship with him—at any rate, relationship under a contract of matrimony—had not been in the police force at all. I cannot think that there is any case for saying that a woman who marries a retired police officer is, by virtue of that fact, entitled to a pension under the police scheme. There might have been something in it in the old days, but, in the future, she will get the benefits of the National Insurance Scheme.
The word "generosity" has been used in this Debate. I am not claiming that anything which is being done here, or which can be done, ought to be described in that way. We will endeavour to have regard to what is the appropriate position of the widow of a man in this important public service, and, in dealing with that, we will also endeavour to be just to the ratepayers and taxpayers who have to find the money. I am quite certain that all people of good will are


anxious that the dignity of this great Force should be preserved, and that even the indignity thrown upon it by seeing impecunious widows is a thing which they would desire to see removed. It is in that spirit that I will make the regulations which this Amendment empowers me to make.

Amendment agreed to.

2.15 p.m.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 40, leave out "or death."

In line 41, leave out from "retirement," to "occurred," in line 42.

In line 42, after "date," insert:
notwithstanding that that person is on the said date, or thereafter becomes, again a member of a police force.

In page 4, line 3, leave out "his case," and insert:
the case of the person in question.

In line 9, leave out "or in respect of."

In line 18, after "shall," insert:
(subject, in the case of the pensions mentioned in paragraph (c) of this proviso, to the provisions of any regulations made under the Fire Services Act, 1947).".

In line 19, leave out "paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of."

In line 20, leave out "next succeeding Section," and insert:
Sections (Forfeiture of pensions) and (Appeals) of this Act.

In page 5, line 2, leave out from "save," to "the," in line 3, and insert:
as provided in."—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Modification of enactments.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 12 to 20.
This Amendment is consequential on the proposal to add a new Clause regarding forfeiture of pension, which we shall be discussing later.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert:
'police authority,' in relation to any regulations made under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, means the Secretary of State, and in any other case has the same meaning as in Section thirty of the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
This is merely a question of definition. I do not think there is any point of substance arising on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Forfeiture of pensions.)

(1) Every pension granted under regulations made under this Act is granted, and every pension (whether described as a pension or as an allowance) granted under any of the enactments specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to have been granted, only upon condition that it may be forfeited by the police authority in any of the following cases, that is to say if the grantee—

(a) is convicted of any offence and is sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months; or
(b) enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation or employment which is illegal, or in which the grantee has made use of the fact of former employment in a police force in a manner which is discreditable or improper; or
(c) supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which is discreditable or improper any information which the grantee had obtained in the course of employment in a police force; or
(d) solicits or, without the consent of the police authority, accepts directly or indirectly any testimonial or gift having any pecuniary value on retirement from the police force or otherwise in connection with his service in a police force; or
(e) enters into or continues in any business, occupation or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited from doing so by the police authority on any reasonable grounds:
Provided that a pension shall not be forfeited under paragraph (b) of this Subsection unless reasonable warning has previously been given in writing by the police authority.

(2) A forfeiture under this Section may affect the pension wholly or in part, and may be permanent or temporary as the police authority may determine.

(3) Save as aforesaid, such a pension as aforesaid shall not be capable of being forfeited:

Provided that where a pension granted under any of the enactments specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act has been forfeited before the passing of this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect the validity of the forfeiture, and the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, shall apply in relation to the forfeiture as if this Act had not passed.

(4) The preceding provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to the rules and regulations specified in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act as it applies in relation to the enactments specified in Part I of that Schedule, subject, however, to any necessary adaptations.

(5) Section fifteen of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Younger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, as the Committee already know, was put down to meet the criticism that provisions relating to forfeiture should appear in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. I hope that it will meet the wishes of the Committee in that respect. I do not think there is very much that I need say about it, although both on Second Reading and today there has been some criticism of the fact that there are any provisions of this kind relating to forfeiture. I think the Committee will be of the opinion that particularly in relation to a Police Force, it is necessary and perfectly reasonable that there should be some such forfeiture provision. I think it will also be agreed that no hardship has been known to arise in the past from this type of provision.
In many respects, the new Clause simply repeats what was already in the 1921 Act, but, as was explained on the Second Reading, there are a number of respects in which this Clause will be more favourable to the retired police officer than were the provisions of the former Act. In particular, there was the old provision whereby a police officer was liable to forfeit his pension if he knowingly associated with thieves or reputed thieves, and the further provision under which he was liable to forfeit his pension if he refused to give to the police information or assistance.
The Home Secretary explained on the Second Reading why it was thought right to leave those two provisions out. In the first case, it is rather a vague allegation. Police officers, by the nature of their calling, are apt to be acquainted, if only

in a professional manner, with reputed thieves. In the second case, it did not seem proper to put a more onerous obligation upon police officers than already lies upon a good citizen to assist the police in the detection of crime. I would point out that this is in contradistinction to practically the whole of the rest of the new provisions. This is a provision which will be retrospective, and, therefore, existing police pensioners will benefit from the improvements which are being made in this proposed new Clause as against the existing law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Major Bruce: I beg to move, in Subsection I (d), to leave out:
or, without the consent of the police authorities, accepts directly or indirectly.
The purpose of this Amendment is to bring about a position whereby, if a person who is in receipt of a police pension receives a gift from outside sources, he is not automatically placed in peril of losing his pension. As the Clause now stands, interpreted quite literally, if this Amendment were not accepted, he would be in such peril. I can visualise the circumstance of a police constable, who has been in the force for a number of years, going away, even from the district in which he was formerly employed, and in the festive season receiving a gift of a brace of pheasant or something similar from the local squire, thereby automatically making himself liable to forfeit his pension. I do not think that is the intention of the Clause, but on its strict literal interpretation I think that position might arise.
We have to bear in mind that people, after they have fulfilled their normal tenure of duty in the police force and go into civilian life, are just as liable to be the recipients of ordinary human generosity as anybody else, and I should have thought that the words "solicits any testimonial or gift" in themselves would have been sufficient to cover the purpose. Clearly, if a retired policeman accepts a gift corruptly—and it is against this practice that the actual Clause is devised—although I am not a legal expert in these matters, I should imagine that the passive acceptance in a corrupt way of a gift in respect of past services would in itself amount to soliciting in law.

Mr. Younger: I will take the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has made. I was a little surprised at his suggestion that the word "solicit" if it stood alone without the words which he proposes to leave out, would have the meaning which he placed upon it. The points I would like to make in asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment are, first, that I do not think it is at all likely that the existing words could possibly cause any hardship. I think my hon. and gallant Friend can accept an assurance on this matter. A police constable would certainly not be liable to forfeit his pension merely because he had accepted a gift due to ordinary human generosity and in no way connected with his retirement from or his service in the police force. I think that is a fear which has no foundation on the construction of the words as they stand.
My second point is that if it were necessary positively to prove solicitation, the provision would become unworkable and unenforceable.

Mr. Hale: Let us get this clear. Suppose a police officer, who has served 30 years in a rural village, retires and the population voluntarily subscribe, as they frequently do, a gold watch or a testimonial or a purse of money on his retirement in view of the happy relations which have existed and the way in which he has protected their property. Does my hon. Friend say that if that happened without the prior approval of the chief constable, who may be the very cause of the man's retirement and leaving in advance of his time, the meaning of the Clause would be that the constable could lose his pension, or does my hon. Friend say that he could not?

Mr. Younger: It is clear that consent is required. Of course, in examining matters of this kind one is entitled to quote extreme instances; but, surely, it is opening the door to corruption to a very considerable extent to say that members of the police force are entitled to accept gifts by subscription or otherwise by a large or small body of people without the approval of the police authority.

Mr. Hale: On retirement?

Mr. Younger: Yes, on retirement.

Mr. Hale: It is right that we should get this matter clear. Obviously, the making of a gift to a police constable exercising

his duty is open to corruption or bribery or influence. But when he ceases to wear his uniform and when he leaves the village, what objection can there be to generous-minded people saying, "You have been a decent chap, Bill. We would like to give you something, and we will not ask the chief constable first."?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Supposing someone wants to make a gift to a constable while he is in office but, because it would be unlawful to do so, waits for a suitable moment on his retirement and then proffered the gift. What about a case like that, unless the position were covered by suitable words such as this Clause contains?

Mr. Hale: The ingenious mind of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) could, no doubt, multiply examples of all sorts of manifestations of pernicious peculiarities in the mental make-up of people who may come in contact with police constables. I am trying to deal with the ordinary course of events in an ordinary village.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I think the danger is that, although all the events we are discussing happen after retirement, it might well be that certain services were asked for by an individual on the promise of a gift after the retirement of the police officer. I would further say, in connection with the hypothetical case posed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who said that an oppressive chief constable might himself have been the cause of the retirement, that on my information, the police authority for this purpose is not the chief constable but the watch committee, and there is the right of appeal to quarter sessions in the event of dissatisfaction in this respect.
I do not think that type of very extreme case could possibly arise. I would repeat the very real difficulty I see in the enforcement of the Amendment, if a gift is received in this way and if it is necessary positively to prove solicitation. It is not really a very onerous requirement to say that police officers must obtain the consent of the police authority if they are going to receive a perfectly proper gift—there may conceivably be such gifts in such connection with their past services—and it does not seem to me that the Clause as it stands opens the door at all to any oppression or any wrongful forfeiture, whereas it does seem


that the proposed Amendment would make it almost impossible to enforce this particular Subsection.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Might I put a question on the wording of this Clause? Does not this wording mean that consent must be obtained before the gift is accepted and that consent obtained afterwards will not suffice, but that the pension will still be imperilled? Is it really intended that a police officer on retirement must obtain the consent of the police authorities before he accepts a packet of cigarettes?

Mr. Ede: Of course, that is not meant at all. Even in the course of his duty if he happened to receive a packet of cigarettes a very serious charge of receiving a bribe would not be sustained, but, of course, it is wrong, it is a breach of the regulations. If my Latin were any good I would continue the quotation which begins: "de minimis …." What one seeks to avoid, in resisting this Amendment, is putting the police in the way of temptation, which might occur, of conniving at something on the understanding that a gift will be made in a few months or a few years time when the man retires. The police are subject to very severe temptation in that matter. One may not like the gambling laws, but the law with regard to street bookmaking leaves the man on the beat open to receive very considerable temptation in that sort of way—if somebody wants to act as bookmaker's runner and he drops a hint, "If you will let me have a run for a certain amount of time, you are going to be out of the Force in two years' time and there will be something for you." It is alleged that quite substantial sums have been paid on occasion to let a man run a show like that.
What we desire is to protect the honest policeman from temptation of that kind. Of course, when he is investigating certain other forms of crime, where much more substantial sums are involved, and where turning a blind eye by a policeman might enable some ill-doer to make very substantial sums, it is desirable to make it quite clear that any gift of that kind will place the policeman's pension in jeopardy. That is the kind of thing at which we aim, and I suggest it is very desirable for the sake of the reputation of the force that it should be known that any arrangements of that kind are regarded as

completely wrong, and that a convenient avoidance of the mere technicalities of the law while a man is in the Force may still be visited upon him after he has retired.

Mr. Hale: Surely, as it is a breach of the criminal law it is dealt with already on the question of a conviction for the breach of the criminal law. What we are trying to deal with now is the ordinary, commonplace case where the inhabitants of a village want to give a testimonial, say a watch, to a policeman on retirement—the common case, the very simple case. The wealthy bookmaker who bribes a policeman sets him up as a "tic-tac man" at £10 a week. He does not give money; he can get round this in other ways. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the really rare case of wholesale bribery, this Clause will have no effect, because the policeman would not worry about his pension.

Mr. Ede: The village subscription might be kept secret from the constable, but I doubt it myself, because he generally knows pretty well what is going on in a village, and he will know that a list is going round and that subscriptions are being invited. If the people who are organising the subscription do not acquaint the police authorities of what they are doing, I am quite sure that the police constable could see that their ignorance of the state of the law is removed quite easily and a proper application made to the police authority for the policeman to receive that particular testimonial.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I would like to refer to the question I put to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I noticed he was at pains to avoid an answer to the question, although he referred in a somewhat loud-voiced way to my ingenuity and received the loud laughter in support of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). As a matter of fact, what the hon. Member for Oldham will not see is the one point that matters in this Clause, and that relates to the question I put to him. Supposing some criminal, or some person knows that by giving a gift to the constable he is doing something unlawful, waits until the constable retires in order to make that gift, I asked the hon. Member for Oldham whether that would not be entirely wrong and whether that is not just the sort of case this Clause is intended to deal with.

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I asked the question before and you would not answer it, and now I am not going to give you a chance to do so.

The Chairman: The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point about this Clause is a very important one indeed. It has nothing to do with the simple village function of making a collection, or giving some watch as a parting gift or a parting shot to some constable who has retired. That is not the point, because any gift of that kind in appreciation which any villagers desire to make is permitted under this Clause. It is expressly covered in the Clause. The consent of the police authority may, and in a proper case would, be granted. No one is going to suggest that the police authority is going to be so churlish as to refuse that consent in a proper case. The Clause as it stands is obviously put there to prevent a constable doing something which would have been wrong had he done it while he was a constable, and making it impossible for him to wait to do it until he has retired from the force. On those grounds, I think this Clause should be supported.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to intervene in the conflict between the two branches of the legal profession on the benches opposite, but rather to put another point to the Home Secretary which arises on this Amendment. There is obviously a good deal of force in what the Home Secretary says as to the necessity of providing adequate sanctions against even the hint of corruption in the police force. I think we must all agree with that. However, the forfeiture of pension is a terribly heavy penalty, and it can be approved by this Committee only on really adequate grounds. What worries me is the word "indirectly" in paragraph (d). It says that forfeiture shall be incurred if the gift is accepted "directly or indirectly." I am not very clear what the indirect acceptance of a gift is intended to cover. Is it intended to cover a gift, say, to a policeman's wife or to a member of his family?
Where it can be shown, no doubt, that there is an attempt to get the gift by covert means to the policeman, well and

good: forfeiture is rightly incurred. But if the gift is simply a gift to a woman it might yet be argued by a police authority that that was an indirect way of offering a benefit to the policeman. That does open up certain dangerous possibilities. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out, it is, at least, arguable that gifts obtained before consent is applied for, should prejudice the policeman. But this is one stage further, if a policeman is to risk—even technically risk—losing his pension because somebody gives a present to his wife. I can see some of the considerations, but I am not very clear as to what is the mischief aimed at by this word "indirectly," and I should be grateful if I could be given some reassurance on the point.

Sir G. Fox: I hope the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment and leave the point quite clear so that policemen shall know exactly what the position is; not only to try to stop any possible form of corruption, but also in the police officers' own interest. I know a case in which a police inspector diligently did his duty, as a consequence of which a man was duly sent to prison; and when he came out a year later he went to the police inspector and gave him a small present—a very small present: a pair of nylon stockings, or something like that—and, having done so, he "shopped" the inspector, who lost his job. That was done in a small town with a small police force, and it did not do any good. It is very much better that the members of the Police Force should know exactly what the law is. Reasonable consent will not be withheld, and it is in the interests of the policemen themselves that they should know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think that I was in any way dissenting from the object of the provisions of this new Clause. Indeed, I think that on both sides of the Committee the target outlined by the Home Secretary is accepted—the target of this new Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) says it is desirable that this point should be made quite clear to the members of the Police Force. I agree. The hesitation and doubt I feel is whether this wording is really apt to


define the target. I think it is not very satisfactory wording.
I should like to see it provided that consent obtained after receipt of the gift would not place the pension in any form of peril. I should also like to see some wording put into the effect that where the gift is made, for instance, to a member of a policeman's family or to his wife, forfeiture will not be operative upon the policeman unless the circumstances show that he really must have had some knowledge that that present was to be made, and that it was thus made possibly circuitously for giving the policeman a bribe. I intervene only to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these words are capable of improvement, and I request him to give the wording some consideration to achieve what is, I think; the common object of both sides of the Committee, and to make it quite clear to all police officers that bribes accepted by them or their agents after their retirement will incur very heavy penalties.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I would point out in the first place that these words are lifted directly out of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. They may be even older than that. They come from Section 15 (1, f) of the Act of 1921. There has been 27 years' experience of their working. As far as I know there has never been any indication that it has not been possible to interpret them reasonably and apply them equitably in the circumstances of the various police forces. I should have thought myself that to delete the word "indirectly" would lay the whole thing far too wide open.
I am in some difficulty about the question of what happens in the case of the wife. One of the things I have had to do in the course of my tenure of office has been to make quite clear to chief constables who have attempted to exercise control over wives of policemen, that they engage the policemen and not the wives. I know that there used to be a difficulty in certain Nonconformist churches because it seemed to be thought that when they were engaging parsons the most important persons to look at were the parsons' wives; and certain parsons had to point out that it was they and not their wives who were going to do the parsons' jobs.

The same is very true of the policemen, and I have tried to assert that on more occasions than one. However, one must recognise that, after all, there may be a way of circumventing this if substantial gifts should be made to a policeman's wife in respect of something which the policeman ought not to have done or ought to have done.
I will have these words examined in the light of the practice; because, after all, in 27 years this problem has had to be dealt with, I have no doubt, on several occasions. I would point out that, of course, forfeiture under this new Clause is subject to the right of appeal. If a police officer thinks that his pension has been unjustly forfeited, he can go to the appropriate court of quarter sessions and ask that his pension shall be restored. I recognise the force of what has been said. I am quite sure everyone desires to cover the whole of the mischief to the discipline and character of the Police Force that laxity here might cause. In the light of that, I give the undertaking that I will look at the words to see if it is possible to improve them.

Major Bruce: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in line 21, Subsection (1), after "paragraph (b)," to insert "(c) and (e)."
I think my right hon. Friend will accept this. I do not want to elaborate the matter. What the Amendment seeks to ensure is, that there shall be notice in writing before the exercise of the remedy under this new Clause. Paragraph (c) creates an entirely new offence so far as the criminal law is concerned, and the forfeiture of pension is a very heavy penalty. The Amendment suggests that there should be warning in writing before the powers are exercised. It suggests, too, that warning should be given in writing in the case in which a policeman sets himself up in the innocent business of a private detective. Perhaps there is a stronger case for the second part than the first, because the first part may easily raise serious matters. Many retired police officers commence in business as private detectives, and I am satisfied that this particular regulation is not widely known. In my experience it is a common but


rather undesirable practice for police officers, by virtue of their office, to have access to information which they would not otherwise have. However, at least they should be entitled to some notice, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will accept this proposal.
I apologise for not having previously thanked the Home Secretary for what he seeks to do in the Clause, which constitutes a very substantial and much appreciated concession. I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), and having got away from the subject I forgot to return to it.

Mr. Younger: I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that it is not appropriate to apply to paragraphs (c) and (e) the proviso which has been set out and applies to paragraph (b). My hon. Friend said he thought there was perhaps a stronger case—I gather he meant for his Amendment—in the case of paragraph (e) than (c). True, from the point of view of protecting the public, paragraph (c) is more important, and the offence under paragraph (e) is perhaps less serious. At the same time, I would draw his attention to words which he did not read out, in paragraph (e):
enters into or continues in any business, occupation or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited from doing so by the police authority…
He said that many members of Police Forces are not aware that they should not do so. Surely, if they had been prohibited from doing so they would be aware of it?

Mr. Hale: The whole point is that a general prohibition could be a ukase laid down that no member of the Police Force shall start up as a private detective.

Mr. Younger: I certainly do not read it in that way myself. I should have thought this was a question of a particular police pensioner being prohibited by the police from undertaking a particular employment. That was certainly the way I had read it. If I am right in that construction, my hon. Friend might agree that there could be no need for any further notice.

Sir Arthur Salter: It could be made perfectly clear by saying "after he has been" instead of "after being."

Mr. Younger: We can look at that to make sure that there is no ambiguity. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention, that it should be a question of a prohibition addressed to the particular pensioner concerned.
In paragraph (c) there is no such phrase as "after having been prohibited." This Clause, above all, is of the utmost importance to the public because of the very great danger which may arise, end the great hardship involved, if police officers who, in the course of their duties, have obtained confidential information about individuals, firms, or anything else, use such information after retirement in a manner which is discreditable or improper. I do not think this is a thing about which any police officer could be under a misapprehension. After all, a police officer who has been in the service long enough to have retired and to be in receipt of a pension, is not entirely an innocent in these matters. The information has to be used in a manner which is discreditable or improper. Also, as in all other cases of forfeiture arising under this Clause, there is an appeal when the man concerned feels aggrieved. Therefore, I suggest that paragraphs (c) and (e) are on a different footing from paragraph (b), for which this proviso has been specially inserted—a proviso which was not present in the earlier Act. Subject to the undertaking that we will look at the wording of paragraph (e) to make sure that the construction permits what I have suggested we intend to do, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

Major Bruce: Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking also to look at the words "after being prohibited"? At the moment, on the strict wording of the Clause, unless the person ceases business straight away upon prohibition—which, obviously, is not what the Minister intends—he will become liable automatically. That is the reason why my hon. Friend and I have sought to insert the warning in writing. At present, technically the man is prohibited from carrying on the whole thing, which I do not think is what the Home Secretary intends.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Under-Secretary looks at paragraph (e) again—because I think he is right about paragraph (c)—I hope he will look at it, not


only from the point of view of making quite clear that the prohibition concerned must be particular and not general, but also from the point of view that the prohibition must itself be in writing. A verbal warning that a retiring police officer should not take up a particular business would be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Provided it can be laid down that the prohibition shall be in writing, I think the difficulty is met. However, an express warning or prohibition—to me, it does not seem to matter which—in writing, directed to the individual in a particular case, is satisfactory and is required.

Mr. Younger: I think I need say no more than that I will certainly take that into account when we are looking at the wording of the paragraph. I do not think the legal construction of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) could arise. It could hardly be a question of the man being liable to forfeiture if he did not walk out within any given period—an hour or a day. There must be a reasonable time, which would be imported into its construction by any court of law. I doubt if it is necessary to examine that aspect. Certainly, we shall take into account all the points that have been raised.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(A ppeals.)

(1) If any person (other than a person such as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945), is aggrieved by—

(a) the refusal of the police authority to admit a claim to receive as of right a pension, or a larger pension than that granted, under the regulations made under this Act; or
(b) the forfeiture, under the provisions in that behalf contained in this Act, of any pension granted to him, whether under the regulations made under this Act or under any of the enactments specified in Part of the First Schedule to this Act,
he may appeal to a court of quarter sessions and that court, after enquiring into the case, may make such order in the matter as appears to the court to be just:

Provided that—

(a) nothing in this Section shall confer a right to appeal against anything done by the police authority in the exercise of any power which is conferred on them by regulations under this Act and is expressly

declared by those regulations to be a power which they are to exercise in their discretion;
(b) regulations made under this Act may provide, in relation to questions arising out of those regulations, for the reference of any such matter as is specified in the regulations, either by the police authority or by the court, to a medical practitioner, whose decision thereon shall, subject to such rights of appeal as may be provided by the regulations to such tribunal as may be constituted thereunder, be final on the matter so referred.

(2) The court of quarter sessions to which a person may appeal under the preceding Subsection shall be—

(a) if he last served in the metropolitan police force, the court of quarter sessions for the County of London;
(b) if he last served in the City of London police force, the court of quarter sessions for the City of London;
(c) if he last served in the police force of a borough having a separate police force and a separate court of quarter sessions, the court of quarter sessions for that borough; or
(d) in any other case, the court of quarter sessions for the county in which he last served in a police force.

(3) An appeal shall lie on a point of law from any decision of a court of quarter sessions under this Section to the High Court in accordance with rules of court and the decision of the High Court shall be final

(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made under Section one of this Act make provision as to the court or other person by whom appeals by persons such as are mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, who are aggrieved by any refusal of the Secretary of State to admit such a claim, or by any such forfeiture, as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section are to be heard and determined and the proviso to Subsection (1) of this Section shall with any necessary adaptations apply in relation to any such appeal.

(5) In the application of this Section to Scotland, for any reference to a court of quarter sessions there shall be substituted a reference to the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the person concerned last served as a member of a police force, and for any reference to the High Court, there shall be substituted a reference to the Court of Session.

(6) Paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section seventeen of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is hereby repealed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is intended to meet the criticism that the Bill itself should contain provisions preserving the right of appeal to quarter sessions granted by


Section 17 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. Under Subsection (1) that right of appeal is substantially the same as in Section 17 of the 1921 Act, and the power of quarter sessions is equally wide. It may make such order in the matter as appears to the court to be just. Proviso (a) elaborates and states rather more clearly the existing provisions in Section 17 (1) of the 1921 Act, that no right of appeal should be conferred against the exercise of any discretion. Proviso (b) makes provision for the reference to a medical tribunal on any question arising on the opinion of a medical practitioner to whom a matter is referred, either by a police authority or by the court.
Subsection (2) specifies which is the appropriate court of quarter sessions in various possible circumstances. Subsection (3), in effect, repeats the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the 1921 Act. Subsection (4) makes special provision for appeals in a number of forces established under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945. Subsection (5) adapts the requirements so that they can be applicable in Scotland. Subsection (6) repeals Section 17 (1, a) of the 1921 Act, which provided for appeal in the case of forfeiture, since the new Clause (Forfeiture of Pensions) repeals Section 15 of the 1921 Act. Therefore, any appeal against forfeiture in the future, even by existing pensioners, will be against a decision taken in pursuance of this new Clause, and the new appeal procedure specified in the new Clause regarding appeals will apply.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I think it will be more convenient if I do not move the Amendment standing in my name, to leave out lines 11 to 12, but deal in two short sentences with the points the Amendment sought to raise. We welcome this new Clause as a substantial concession, but there are a number of matters of real importance arising, in respect of which no appeal is given. One example is where an injury arises out of or in the course of duty. That is a matter in respect of which no right of appeal is given. My second point is this: The right is given for appeals to be made to a court of quarter sessions. I can understand the reason for that, but a court of quarter sessions is a somewhat unwieldy tribunal, and is not, in my respectful submission, the proper tribunal. The personnel of a court of quarter sessions is very often identical

with that of the watch committee, and it should be borne in mind that the appeals will often be made in respect of a decision by the watch committee. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should consider whether the county court is not a more suitable tribunal for appeals of this sort.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the Home Secretary has responded to the appeals, made to him a fortnight ago on Second Reading, to put this right of appeal into the Bill. As has been said, it is mainly a psychological question, but none the less it is not unimportant. It is extremely satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to the arguments which were put forward on the previous occasion, and has put the right of appeal on a statutory basis.

Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), I would point out that it is the standing joint committee and not the watch committee which deals with these matters in a county. As a member of both a standing joint committee and of a bench of quarter sessions, I can say that our deliberations are sometimes seriously delayed at quarter sessions by persons who are not members of the standing joint committee. Therefore, it makes us less of a family party than the hon. Member appears to suggest. I will consider whether the county court should not be the appeal tribunal rather than quarter sessions, although I know of no complaints which have been made in this respect. Whether an accident has or has not been incurred in the course of duties, can be the subject of appeal. A man is not debarred from appealing if he feels aggrieved by the decision of the standing joint committee in such a case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed as from Me passing of this Act.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 40, column 3, leave out from beginning, to "section," in line 41.

In line 42, column 3, at end, insert:
and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section seventeen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought that we should have a few words of explanation from the Home Secretary in moving this Bill, or from another Minister, but as the Attorney-General has just come into the House perhaps the House will give me leave to make a few observations after he has spoken.

3.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I apologise to the House for being late, but other matters proceeded rather more rapidly than my advisers anticipated. This is a modest Bill; indeed, there may be some who will think that it is rather a stop-gap Measure. It is intended to assist the Court of Appeal in dealing with the increasingly large number of appeals which are being set down before it. It is, I hope, a non-controversial Measure.
The Court of Appeal is normally presided over by the Master of the Rolls—I say "normally" because, technically and strictly, the Lord Chancellor is the President. That court is composed of eight Lords Justice of Appeal and, in practice, it falls almost entirely on them to man the three divisions of the court each of which, under the existing law—the Judicature Act, 1902—is composed of three judges. Very often, in practice, it is not possible to constitute the three courts; only two of them are able to sit, because, as Members know, it frequently happens that the Master of the Rolls, or another Lord Justice of Appeal, is asked to assist in the discharge of other important public duties. Lord Greene who, I suppose, is the most heavily burdened of all our judicial officers, presided, as the House will remember, over the arbitration to settle the amount of compensation to be awarded in connection with the nationalisation of the coal industry, and Lord Justice Cohen is

now presiding over the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors. In addition to the Lords Justice of Appeal, however, certain holders of other judicial offices are qualified to sit and, occasionally—not, I think, very often—they might be able to constitute an additional Division of the Court of Appeal if that court were entitled to sit in more Divisions than three. Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary—the Law Lords—may sit; the Lord Chief Justice is qualified to sit; the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division is entitled to sit; and judges of the High Court are entitled to sit. In practice, the services of these gentlemen are not normally available, because they are fully occupied with their own official duties.
It does however occasionally happen that their engagements elsewhere would permit them to help in the work of the Court of Appeal. On those occasions, it may be possible, without in any way diminishing the notably high standard and quality of the Court, to enable it to sit in four divisions, each constituted of one or two of the ordinary Lords Justice of Appeal and containing, perhaps, in one, the Lord Chief Justice, perhaps, in another, the President, perhaps, in a third, one of the Law Lords, and, perhaps, in the fourth, one of the judges of the High Court. A week or two, even if only a week or two, of assistance of that kind in the courts in each term might be of very great value in disposing of the list. At present the legal limitation of the number of divisions in which the court may sit to three makes that impossible to accomplish. As I indicated to the House, that limitation was imposed in 1902. The congestion of business in the Court of Appeal is now such that it is essential in the interests of the administration of justice that the limitation should be raised.
In 1947, the number of appeals set down for hearing was 675. That was a record up to that date, but I think that there is every indication that the number that will be set down in the course of the coming year is likely to be higher. That has resulted not only in delay, but also—and this is a consideration which we would be wrong to lose sight of—in an intolerable burden on the judges of the court itself. In 1938, the number of Lords Justice of Appeal was increased by three, from five to eight. One of the


express purposes of that increase was to relieve the court of some of the strain under which it had been working up to that time, and to give its members an opportunity of preparing and considering judgments in important cases which they thought it inexpedient to deliver immediately, and in which they reserved their decisions.
These objects have been entirely frustrated by the increase in the number of appeals, and members of the court now never have time to take off court in which to prepare their considered judgments. Not only that, but even by working at the highest pressure the court is unable to dispose of its list with the expedition which justice demands. In the course of the present term—I think these are the right figures to date—74 appeals have been dealt with and 83 have been set down during the like period, with the result that the number of appeals coming up is exceeding the rate at which the appeals are being disposed of. We hope that in these circumstances, the Bill may help a little. I do not pretend that it is likely to help very much. It does nothing, of course, and does not pretend to do anything, to alter the position in which finality can only be reached after proceedings before three, and in some cases, as in Revenue cases, before four different tribunals. Speaking personally, I think that this is a matter in which our present arrangements are open to grave criticism. That is a matter which will receive attention by the Committee established under Lord Justice Evershed.
Again, this Bill does not do anything to increase the number of ordinary judges of the court—the Lords Justice of Appeal. It relies simply upon the occasional assistance of those other ex officio judges. Experience will show whether it is right or not, but we are hoping that the present spate of appeals is abnormal. There are, for instance, ten times as many divorce appeals as there were about ten years ago, and it may be that that will turn out to be an abnormal situation. At the moment there are sufficient of them to keep one division of the court fully occupied for the whole of the term. If, unfortunately, it turns out that appeals continue at this rate we shall have to consider more drastic remedies, but we felt it would be hardly convenient to embark on those before the Committees which are at pre-

sent considering all our judicial procedure including the multiplicity of appeals, have been able to make their reports.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like, with the leave of the House, to make a few observations on this Measure, and at the outset to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have no objection to the Bill. It is intended to facilitate the disposal of pending appeals, and that is an object which we should like to see accomplished. Something like six months must now elapse between the setting down and giving notice of appeal and the hearing of that appeal. It may be that in many cases it is longer, but it really is a deplorable state of affairs that litigants have to wait so long with anxiety before the final determination of the issue.
I want to make one or two observations with regard to this court. This fourth court may be constituted from judges drawn from other sources, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated the wide field from which judges may be directed to the Court of Appeal. It would be the practice I imagine in the normal case, as has been the practice in the past, to constitute the fourth court—in the past the third court—by calling on judges from the King's Bench, Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division and the Chancery Division to make up the required numbers. If the determination of appeals is going to be accelerated by this fourth court and the fourth court is normally going to be constituted as I have said, it is going to retard the hearing of actions in the first place.
I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind not only the many obligations which His Majesty's judges are now called upon to perform and fulfil independently of their judicial functions, but also the need to provide facilities, in spite of the existence of this fourth court, for the hearing of trials in London, and in particular, in the King's Bench Division, because when judges are on circuit and if the fourth court is still sitting, it may well be—as I think it has been in the past—that very few trials will be determined in the High Court of justice. While welcoming this Measure, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind the advisability of keeping a very close watch on


it, so that by facilitating the hearing of appeals we shall not retard unduly the hearing of actions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made some observations about the possibility of drastic remedies. I do not know what was in his mind, and I have no desire to press him upon that matter, but it is a question worthy of investigation and inquiry why the number of appeals has so largely increased. It is true to say that particularly in the Divorce Division appeals have become more fashionable—if that is quite the right word to use—and also that appeals from decisions in the Divorce Division take almost as long in the Court of Appeal as they do in the court of first instance, if not longer. That is a factor which must be taken into account.
Bearing in mind the shortage in which this may result in judges for the King's Bench Division either for circuit work or for remaining in London to determine cases, I hope that we may get an assurance—I would make it clear that I am not seeking any invitation—from the Attorney-General that there will be no reluctance to appoint Commissioners to fill vacancies which have been created temporarily by the removal, for instance, of a King's Bench judge to the Court of Appeal. In the belief that the proposal is likely to effect a considerable improvement in the administration of justice we will support the Second Reading of the Bill, while hoping that it will not be necessary for a fourth Court of Appeal to sit for very long.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On the face of it, the Bill seeks to effect something of very small dimensions, to create a fourth division of the Court of Appeal. It involves, however, very much more serious implications, one of which is the recruiting of judges of first instance from their courts to the Court of Appeal in order to man it with the numbers required by the Divisions of that Court which are sitting. Those who are familiar with courts will know that quite frequently, even when only two courts have been sitting, a learned judge either from the Chancery Division or from the King's Division has been sitting there; a fortiori, when there are four divisions, that is likely to become more noticeable

than ever. Recently, the Chancery Division has been judicially fully manned again but difficulties are quite likely to be encountered there if one or two Chancery judges are being taken from that Division for hearing appeals in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, whereas, on the one hand, the strength of the Chancery Division has been made up, that strength is reduced by using the services of some of its judges in the Court of Appeal.
I am certain I am pushing at an open door so far as the Attorney-General is concerned when I say that it is important to bear in mind that some more settled arrangement should be made to deal with the business of the courts and to avoid this taking away of judges from their own courts. I would make a suggestion with the same modest purpose as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller); the temporary difficulty of the congestion of business in the courts should be met by the appointment of Commissioners for the King's Bench Division. I cannot see why Commissioners should be appointed for circuit, for instance, and not appointed for the courts in London. They would discharge precisely the same judicial business. When appointed for Assizes, Commissioners take criminal business on one circuit and civil business on another circuit. The two put together amount to precisely the work that the judge of the King's Bench is doing when he is sitting either on the civil side or in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Certainly, it is most important that judges ought not to be taken from their judicial functions in order to sit upon or preside over Royal Commissions and inquiries, either by the Home Office or any other Ministry. Especially under present conditions members of the Court of Appeal should not be so taken from the work of the Court of Appeal. I do not say there may not be special cases where public confidence may call for a Lord justice of Appeal or a judge to be appointed, but, with such exceptions, it should be the rule not to take judges away from the courts and their judicial work.
With regard to the business of the courts, as the Attorney-General said, more cases are being entered than are being disposed of. I know that at one point last month whereas 20 appeals had been heard 54 cases were in the same period entered. That is a very serious disparity to make up with


the number of divorce appeals increasing all the time. I do not see any hope in the immediate future of any substantial diminution of the number of divorce cases. On the contrary, they are bound to increase. It is very essential therefore, that the court should not only be kept at full judicial strength, and that this fourth division should be created. I welcome the Bill and I hope it will work adequately under present conditions. In conclusion, I think that the courts are undermanned; that the judges are underpaid, and that there might well have to be an increase in the number of judges.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: We all hope that the congestion in the Court of Appeal will soon pass away. There has been a colossal number of divorce cases heard last year, no less than 54,410, and that is bound to increase the number of appeals to the Court of Appeal. There are now pending, I understand, 76 divorce appeals and, as the learned Attorney-General has said, that would keep one division of the Court of Appeal active for a whole term. The Attorney-General indicated that he might have to come to the House with a more drastic remedy. He did not express what the remedy was but I presume he meant that, if this is a continuing difficulty, we shall have to have more Lords Justices of Appeal. It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, that it should be administered in a catch-as-catch-can manner. The Court of Appeal ought to be manned by Lords Justices of Appeal, except in special circumstances. It is not desirable that we should take judges away from the work of of the King's Bench Division or the Chancery Division. It is undesirable from every point of view. It is certainly undesirable to appoint Commissioners to sit in the King's Bench Division in London, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner Samuels). If, in fact, we cannot discharge justice in this country adequately with the number of judges who now sit, we must have more judges, and not appoint Commissioners. With great respect to Commissioners, I believe that the ordinary litigant would desire that his case should be heard by one of His Majesty's judges, and not by a Commissioner.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Suppose the congestion was only temporary and only lasted a matter of months?

Mr. Scholefield Allen: As long as it is a temporary matter, and figures show that it is capable of being remedied in 12 or 18 months, we can support the Bill. I ventured to intervene to say that I hope it is only a temporary expedient, and that the Government will not hestitate to take the drastic remedy of appointing more Lords Justices of Appeal, and more judges if, by and large, and in a reasonably short time, appellants are not able to have their cases heard by His Majesty's Judges of Appeal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. G. Wallace.]

Orders of the Day — WATER BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Combination of certain orders under principal Act.)

3.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "for," to second "the," and insert:
transferring to the applicants, whether by agreement or compulsorily.
This Amendment fills a gap in the Bill. Cases may arise where it is desirable, at the same time, to set up a new undertaker under Section 23 of the principal Act and to transfer to the new undertaker the whole or part of the undertaking of the existing undertakers who will not agree to the transfer. Without this Amendment, the objective may be attained only by two separate, successive orders. Hon. Members will recollect, that when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I showed that a great deal of the effect of the Bill was to enable operations to be done once which required at present to be done twice. This Amendment enables the whole operation to be done under one Order, and is in line with the general purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think it is right to say that this is the first time that the element of compulsion has been introduced into this Bill in the course of its passage through Parliament, and I think we ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a much fuller statement on why he now wants to take power by order compulsorily to transfer one undertaking to another, whether statutory or not. It is some time since I had an opportunity of considering in detail the Water Act, 1945, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the undertakers threatened with the compulsory acquisition of their undertaking by some other undertakers, in consequence of the order, will have ample opportunity before an independent tribunal of putting forward their grounds against the proposal, and also of hearing the grounds put forward in the proposal for making the compulsory acquisition.
I do not know what is the intention behind this Amendment, but I thought when I read it that it might be intended to apply to cases which may arise where a new town is sited in a rural area, where, in order to provide water for the new town, there might have to be some compulsory transfer of an undertaking from a local authority, which may result in considerable shortage in rural areas where water is badly needed. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman, even at this time, if he would make it quite clear to me that the threatened undertaking is amply protected by having opportunities of putting forward its case before any order compulsorily transferring the property of that undertaking can be made.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in supposing that this could arise in the case of the new towns. It could also arise in the case of the setting up of a joint board, by agreement, under Section 1 of the principal Act. I think he need have no fear on the other points. Nothing that is being done under this Amendment would enable anything to be done that could not otherwise have been done, in two stages, and which would be quite permissible at the present time. First, the new undertakers could be set up—that requires one order—and then, when they were established, they could start the machinery for an order under Section 9 (2) of the principal Act for the compulsory transfer of the existing undertaking.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the undertakings which it is proposed to transfer would not be prejudiced in any way. They would have exactly the same right of objecting and forcing the issue to Parliament as if the transfer were sought in two stages. My own feeling is that the undertakings themselves will probably be glad to have this, because they will be spared the somewhat difficult task of deciding, as they must when there are two successive orders, On which point to offer their resistance. I feel that, from everybody's point of view, simplification is an advantage, and that the undertakers whose undertakings it is proposed compulsorily to transfer are absolutely protected. All that this Amendment does is to enable two things to be done under one order instead of, as now, under two separate orders. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his fears are quite groundless.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, to leave out, "the purposes of the order," and to insert, "that purpose."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "shall," to insert:
except as provided by the Section (Compulsory acquisition of land for construction of waterworks) of this Act.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner, if, on this Amendment, which really paves the way for other things, I made a general statement. This Amendment and the proposal to leave out Clause 3, the Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, line 44, the new Clause, and the new Schedule are really all bound up together. While, of course, I am in your hands, Major Milner, it seems to me that it might be convenient if I made a statement covering all of them.

The Chairman: I have no objection if that is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not quite sure where we are getting to on this. It seems a lot to bite off at once on a Friday afternoon to deal with an Amendment to this Clause, the deletion of Clause 3, an Amendment to Clause 10, and a lengthy new Schedule 1, of course, have no objection to the Parliamentary Secretary making a wide statement in moving this harmless looking


Amendment, but, at the same time, I hope, Major Milner, you will not say that we must just have one Debate on all these matters, and then only a Division on the later Amendments. It might be for the convenience of the Committee to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say with regard to the matter generally, but not, I think, to debate in generally, and, perhaps, to confine one's debate to this particular Amendment.

The Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee. We can either have a discussion on the new Clause or on the new Schedule, or we can have a general discussion now.

Mr. Edwards: I should be perfectly happy, if it met the convenience of the Committee, to deal formally with this Amendment, and the Amendment to leave out Clause 3, and to have the main discussion on the new Clause, but I did not want anyone to feel that I had prejudiced the issue by slipping through these paving Amendments without a word.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think it might be a convenient course to take this Amendment formally—we can see it is a preliminary—and then to take formally the Amendment to delete Clause 3, because we can always seek to put it back at a later stage, but there may be a point on Clause 10 which we may wish to discuss, and I would not like it to be assumed that that must go formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Berry: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "land," to the end of line 44.
If this Amendment were accepted the proviso would read:
that no such order shall empower the undertakers to acquire compulsorily any land …
leaving the subject of compensation water to be dealt with subsequently. This would prepare the way for consideration of putting the law in England on the same footing as the law in Scotland on this matter. While I know there are special reasons, under certain circumstances, for differences in the law in the two countries, there would appear to be no reason at all for any difference in relation to compensation water, because the circumstances are largely the same.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is more water in Scotland.

Mr. Berry: It is true that there is more water in Scotland than there is in this part of the country, but the subject of compensation water applies more to the North-West of England.

Mr.Manningham-Buller: indicated dissent.

Mr. Berry: The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) shakes his head, but I have in mind a place known as Haweswater concerning which discussions have taken place on the subject of compensation water. This would very largely be governed by subsequent action on the new Clause standing in my name. I hope it will not be held to prejudice discussion on that Clause if I observe that the first piece of legislation undertaken by the present Government was the Water (Scotland) Act which reached the statute book in 1946. I hope the fact that it was undertaken by the present Government will not be held against it, because it was a necessary corollary to the Act of 1945 The new Clause which I hope to move later on will put the law relating to compensation water on the same footing in both countries. I have no wish to prejudice discussion on the new Clause, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider this Amendment, and I hope he will see his way to agree to it.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the Government will show no hesitation in resisting this Amendment. The real argument which has been put forward in support of it is that it brings the law into conformity with the law of Scotland. As a lawyer, it has always appealed to me much more to have the law of Scotland brought into conformity with the law of England. The problem in Scotland with regard to compensation water, surely, has not anything like the aspect that it does in this country. I should have thought the whole question of compensation water was much more acute South of the Border than North of it.
However that may be, I would ask the Committee to appreciate that the whole object of this Amendment is to give power by order to reduce the compensation water; we do not need any power by order to increase the amount of water, in the case of compensation water, which is going down a river. In


the Derwent Valley, for instance, the amount of compensation water was very carefully calculated before that big scheme was brought into operation. This Amendment may inflict grave injuries on the community living in the neighbourhood, not only the riparian owners who rely on the compensation water for agricultural purposes and not only on those engaged in industry, who also rely upon a constant flow down that river of an amount not less than the stipulated amount of compensation water.
It may be greatly to their prejudice if the Minister suddenly has power to reduce the amount that can go down. If this power is given, it will constitute a risk of severe injury to the amenities of the countryside and, indeed, I wonder what is the purpose of retaining a Minister of Town and Country Planning if, at the whim of the Minister of Health—who has so far not shown himself to be any great lover of the countryside—an order may be made whereby the compensation water would be substantially reduced, with the result that a river, which was the chief attraction of a pretty valley, is reduced to a mere trickle, with three quarters of its bed visible to the naked eye, whether it be mud or rock.
The effect of this Amendment does not stop there. What about the interests of the anglers? They come from all sections of the community. I can well imagine what anglers might feel if, after having long planned a holiday, with the difficulties of travel and of securing hotel accommodation, they went down to the river to fish and to spend a peaceful afternoon, to forget all their troubles—the troubles which this Government had brought upon them—and found there was no water in the river because of an order made by the Minister of Health—no water in the river and, consequently, nothing to fish for. It could not be said that it was due to an act of God, although I can believe it might well lead to a new version of the fisherman's prayer.
There is another aspect of this matter—the question of pollution, which is a big question in this country and, perhaps, a big question in some parts of Scotland, although not in the Highlands. The Thames Conservancy has a standard—I do not think it applies to the whole of the country—as to the correct effluent which it is permissible to dis-

charge, but that standard takes into account the quantity of water into which the effluent is going. It may well be that in other rivers there will be an effluent which is obnoxious, but which is discharged at the present time without doing harm because of the amount of the water in the rivers; they might be fast flowing, and the volume is sufficient at the present time to make the effluent completely innocuous. Supposing there was a river in which the compensation water was settled at the time the scheme was brought into operation—the compensation water was assessed taking into consideration the interests not only of anglers, riparian owners and amenities, but the whole effect upon the countryside if that compensation water was reduced too low. Supposing that now, by order of the Minister, because of a particular need for more water in a particular town, the compensation water is reduced. I fear it may result in increased pollution of our rivers and streams, because the more we reduce the volume of water, the more will be the poisonous effect of the existing effluents.
The hon. Member, I am sure, will agree with me that there are not any rivers passing through any of our industrial towns which are not receiving at this present time a very considerable degree of pollution. If the amount of water flowing through is appreciably reduced, will not also the amount of pollution be considerably increased? I should have thought that followed.
I suggest to the hon. Member that he ought to join with me in expressing the view and the hope that compensation water should not be touched. We are really drawing on reserves when we take compensation water, and drawing on them to the injury of many other people. I know, and I am sure he knows full well, the urgent and great need of water there is in many different parts of our land—not only in London, but in the Midlands, and in my part of the world, Daventry, in particular. I am quite sure that we should be pursuing a wrong policy if we tried to solve the problem of our water shortage in all localities by extracting compensation water. Our solution surely should be to examine the reserves of water of this country, and then to seek to provide an adequate supply to the great industries, a


supply which will yet permit the rivers in our valleys to flow, to look pure, and to be attractive to those who go into the countryside.

Mr. Berry: Has it struck the hon. and learned Gentleman that he might approach many of those on whose behalf at times he speaks to suggest that they might considerably improve the character of their effluents?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not at all sure, since that suggestion is put to me, what is really meant by it. I represent my constituents. I have no interest personally in any one who seeks to pollute rivers. I have spent a good deal of time in trying to stop pollution. I remember once spending 31 days in a case to try to stop pollution. I do not understand the hon. Member's point. I am sure he will agree with me that sometimes local authorities are not entirely innocent in that respect. However, the real point is, surely, that one ought not to draw anything from compensation water unless one is forced to, and that we ought to look everywhere else for water first. I hope that, bearing that in mind, the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He has made arguments from the point of view of amenity, from the point of view of fisheries, from the point of view of pollution; and he implied throughout that the Minister of Health is the enemy of all these interests. He suggested that if the Minister has to consider those matters he is bound to take a decision against those interests; whereas, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—or ought to know—my right hon. Friend is, in fact, the Minister responsible to Parliament for some of these functions, as, for example, those concerned with water pollution. The suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that compensation water should never be touched is a startling one. At the present time, if there is agreement the Minister can make an order.
For my part I think that there is a good deal in this Amendment. As the law stands, the position is not satisfactory.

If the Minister makes an order, that order will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, so that the last word rests with Parliament, unless all the interests are in agreement. This Amendment would have the advantage of enabling the Minister to consider a proposal where there might be objections at the first stage, which might be made as the result of a local inquiry or further consideration between the parties before an order was made. Therefore, I do not share the hon. and learned Member's direct opposition to this Amendment. There is something in the Amendment, and while I would not pledge myself today, if my hon. Friend withdraws the Amendment, I would look into the matter between now and Report stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I must add a little more upon this subject, which I regard as one of great importance. He approached my argument solely on the basis that I was not in favour of the Minister of Health having any powers which he does not possess at present. While that is a very good argument, it was not the one I put forward. My chief argument was that, when the compensation water was settled before constructing the water works, all the people living down the valley concerned would know that they could rely, day in and day out, on a constant water supply. Industries would be built up, which have to rely on water being available—electricity and all categories of undertaking. It is very important for riparian owners that there should be a constant supply of water available. I also mentioned other interests affected. Is it really desirable that there should be, by order, power to place in jeopardy the amount of compensation water going down the river?
I made no attack upon the Minister of Health; nor did I make a gibe that in my opinion he has not shown sufficient interest in the countryside. I should oppose any Minister of Health having such wide powers as apparently the Minister of Health can obtain under this Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to face up to the principle which I sought to adumbrate, that there should be no interference with the amount of compensation water by reducing it arbitrarily by any order made by the Minister. We are always told that there may be an inquiry after the order is


made; but once the order is made it is very difficult to get it upset. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will consider this Amendment between now and Report stage. We shall want to know much more in detail why he seeks to take this power, because, as I understand it—and I think I have read the Clause aright—under Clause 2 as amended the Minister has power—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—

Mr. Berry: On a point of Order. In order to help the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), on the undertaking given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely, Major Milner, that cannot be a point of Order? I was addressing the Committee in opposition to this Amendment, and answering the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) intends to withdraw the Amendment, well and good. At the same time, as I imagine this sort of point will recur later on in the Bill, I wanted to put my views to the Parliamentary Secretary so that he shall have an opportunity of fully considering them before we debate the Bill again.

Mr. Berry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Four o'Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — POLISH ARMY WELFARE FUNDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Bramall: Mr. Bramall (Bexley) rose—

Major Tufton Beamish: On a point of Order. I am not sure in what way the War Office can be responsible for the subject to be raised on this Adjournment Motion, as these are private funds. Would it also be in Order,

Mr. Speaker, to discuss, for instance, the welfare funds of the Royal Artillery, or some other such private funds?

Mr. Speaker: I shall find out when the Secretary of State for War replies whether this matter is a War Office responsibility.

Mr. Bramall: I had this point in mind, and I hope that I shall be able to make the matter clear in the course of my remarks. I want to put before the House certain facts in my possession with regard to the disposal of certain welfare and administrative funds of the Polish Army, and also certain properties of the Polish Army and Polish State. As I understand the situation, these come under the control of the War Office through the Polish Resettlement Act. I find the facts rather disquieting, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary can take this opportunity to arrest that disquiet, which the Secretary of State for War and his predecessor have so far failed to do. I put a Question on this subject on 16th December, 1947. I asked:
What sums were deducted from the pay of members of the Polish Army during the war for welfare purposes; what use had subsequently been made of the welfare funds so built up; who now controls these funds; and what is the amount of such funds."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1947, Vol. 445, C. 306.]
I regard these as plain questions of fact which could be easily ascertainable. I was referred to a previous answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on 29th July. He asked what was going to happen to these funds? It is understandable that the Minister might not be able to answer that part of the Question. But the hon. Member also asked what was the amount of the funds, and whether any sums had been allocated to those Poles who had returned to Poland. It was somewhat surprising that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger), who was then Secretary of State for War, was not in a position to make any statement on that matter. A subsequent Question was asked about a week ago, and my right hon. Friend said that further difficulties had arisen in connection with these funds, and that they might be the subject of legal proceedings. He also regretted that he was not in a position to make a statement. He did not say that they were the subject of legal proceedings, or that


the matter was sub judice, so that would not be the reason for not answering the Question. I hope to hear tonight that the Minister is initiating some legal proceedings to recover the position which, I believe, has been prejudiced by the Polish Forces.
The responsibility of my right hon. Friend has been questioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). The position is that the Polish units in the Resettlement Corps are clearly units of the British Army. The Resettlement Corps was set up as a part of the British Army, and its units have had no other existence than as units of the British Army. Units of the Polish Army were under the control of the British War Office. For a very long time they had no legal existence in this country, except through the fact that they were under the orders of the War Office, and since then, by Section 9 of the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947, they have been commanded by a British officer not below the rank of major-general—the Administrator of the Polish Forces. Certainly, since the Polish Resettlement Act these Forces have been under the control of the British Government.
The property I want to refer to is of three kinds. First, welfare funds, which were built up by deductions from the pay of the Polish troops; second, unit funds, which were built up in the ordinary way by profits from N.A.A.F.I. and entertainments, and which were used for sport and other kinds of recreation; third, certain movable property which was either brought over from Poland or France at the beginning of the war, or was manufactured in Polish Army workshops, or was given to the Polish Forces as a gift. What the total amount of the funds in money is I do not know, but I do know that the funds of the Armoured Division in Germany alone amounted to £200,000. An inventory was made of the property in July, 1945, and the valuation then put upon it, on the basis of the prewar value, less 50 per cent. for depreciation, was £129,000. I am sure I shall have the whole House with me in saying that these funds should be used for the benefit of the Polish soldiers for whom they were collected. I may not carry the whole House with me when I say that the property is property which belongs to the Polish State, and

should be returned to the Polish Government.

Major Beamish: What property should be returned to the Polish Government?

Mr. Bramall: I have mentioned certain movable property—Polish State property.

Major Beamish: What sort of property —rifles or tanks or what?

Mr. Bramall: Not military equipment. Military equipment for the Polish Forces was provided by this country.

Major Beamish: What is it?

Mr. Bramall: It may be various kinds of things—furniture and utensils. I have a document here which gives a list of such things: tools, machinery and furniture are three of the things mentioned in it.
To return to the first proposition—the use of the funds concerned for the benefit of the soldiers for whom they were collected. This has become more difficult as the Polish soldiers concerned have been dispersed throughout the world. Some 237,000 Polish Forces have, at one time or another, passed through British hands according to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. The numbers who came to this country and the numbers who returned to Poland are about equal. About 108,000 have returned to Poland and about 114,000 have come to this country. I think that Members in all parts of the House will agree that these soldiers, whether they have come to this country or whether they have returned to Poland, have an equal right to benefit from the funds which they have subscribed. It is a fair proposition to suggest that these funds should be divided in proportion to the numbers who have gone to Poland and the numbers who have come to this country; and the amounts handed over to the Polish Government in order that they may be used for the benefit of those who have gone to Poland, and to the British Government who are responsible for those who are in this country.

Mr. Blackburn: While agreeing with that in principle, surely it raises an unwarranted assumption that the Polish Government, who are very hostile indeed to Britain and to anyone who has ever fought with Britain, would provide this sum of money for the benefit of the soldiers who returned?

Mr. Bramall: We are not asking them to assist Britons but Poles. It is a principle accepted in the Polish Resettlement Act by this House that the responsibility for those Poles who return to Poland lies on the Polish Government. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say in the Polish Resettlement Act that responsibility rests on the Polish Government, and then, when it comes to dealing with some of the money to assist those people, say, "We will not give it to the Polish Government because we cannot regard them as being responsible for looking after these people." We must accept the principle that when the soldiers return to Poland, it is up to the Polish Government to look after them, and that the Polish Government have a right to these funds set aside for their welfare. That principle has been accepted by the War Office and put into operation in the case of the funds accumulated by the Polish Forces in Italy. Division of those funds was made, and £47,000, the amount representing the number of Poles from Italy who returned to Poland, was handed over to the Polish Government.
The second principle, which is so repugnant to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, so far as Polish property is concerned, has been accepted in part, in so far as the Polish Geographical Institute has been recognised as Polish State property and handed over to the Polish Government. Since then—the summer of 1947—nothing has been done officially. As I have traced in the Questions asked, no statement has been made by the representatives of the War Office in this House, although they were pressed on three occasions to do so.
Unfortunately, during that period and before that period a great deal of unofficial activity was going on, directed to securing that these funds and this property should disappear as quickly as possible out of the jurisdiction of the War Office. The first record which I have of this process, all of which has taken the form of handing over these funds and properties to the Polish Combatants Association, an unofficial body not under the control of the War Office, is on 30th August, 1946, when the Polish Chief of Staff issued an order to the effect that all funds of units of the Polish Army were to be handed over to the Polish Combatants Association. The date of 30th August has a significance because it was a fortnight before the date

of recruiting for the Polish Resettlement Corps. Clearly, the intention was to dispose of this fund before these Polish units came under the control of the War Office. I have a series of translations of letters passed from higher formations to lower formations of the Polish Army. One is dated 30th September, 1946, from General Maczek, in which it is pointed out that the transfer of funds is to take place.
simultaneously with the transfer of the military units to the Polish Resettlement Corps,
and that the transfer
constitutes a formal and definitive cession of the property rights to these funds.
There is another letter of 11th October, 1946, dealing with the transfer of certain shops and stores to the Polish Combatants Association and also their fund, and it ends significantly by saying:
The amounts transferred to the Polish Combatants Association must be booked only in the cash books of the shops or canteens; they should not appear in any other books, as for instance in the books dealing with the Regimental Funds.
Clearly it is intended that this transfer should, if possible, be kept from the British authorities who were taking over the unit.
Early in the summer of 1947 orders were given to the financial authorities of the Polish Division in Germany to transfer a large sum of money, amounting to some £200,000. In that case the British Authorities were informed by the finance officer of the Division. The final letter of this type to which I should like to refer is one of May, 1947, by the chief of the Finance Branch of the Polish First Corps to the Polish Combatants Association stating that certain funds were being handed over to them. The date on which it is written, 28th May, 1947, is significant because that is after the date-27th March, 1947—when the Polish Resettlement Act received the Royal Assent. That deals with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes.
The same type of activity was taking place with regard to movable property, and there is an interesting communication—which I have here—in which all the units are urged to get rid of this property down to the very last button. They are urged to do so on the understanding that the British authorities would provide them with any tools they require for the last few days to tide them over the time until they get into the Polish Resettle-


ment Corps. The end of the process was recorded in "The White Eagle" of last Saturday, when it was stated that the Welfare Fund Association of the Polish Second Corps had folded up because there were no more funds to administer owing to the transfer to the Polish Combatants Association.
There was an interesting general meeting of this Welfare Fund which accepted the report of the chairman's committee by a majority of three out of a meeting of 16 delegates. That may be regarded as a welcome sign of democracy, although in the more democratic societies one would expect a greater degree of unanimity in accepting financial reports of this type. It is quite clear that there has been a deliberate diversion of funds to prevent, in the first place, any of them going into the hands of the Polish Government, and, further, to prevent any benefit being derived from them by the 50 per cent. of the Polish troops who have returned to Poland. As far as the other 50 per cent. is concerned, these moves are to prevent the funds getting into the hands of the British Government, and I consider that the British Government could make extremely good use of them. I do not have to point out to the House the large amount of expenditure which is being incurred by this country on behalf of the Poles. The report of the Select Committee on Estimates makes it very clear that a very large amount of money was put into the Estimates last year and has been expended on the Poles.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Mr. A. R. W. Low (Blackpool North) rose—

Mr. Bramall: No, I cannot give way, I have only a short time. This large amount of money is certainly not grudged by anyone. We have, as has been pointed out in Debates on the Polish Resettlement Act and on other suitable occasions, a great obligation to these people, but our obligation arises because they are not in a position to be responsible for themselves and because they are far divorced from their own Government. If, in fact, they have got funds available I believe those funds should be used to carry part at any rate of this burden and to relieve the British taxpayer.
Part of it is being used by the Polish Combatants Association in this type of way, but 20 per cent. of it is put aside

definitely for the sole use of the Polish Combatants Association. It is used largely for certain political purposes. It is through the Polish Combatants Association that the so-called Polish Government in this country is able to maintain itself and its representation in Dublin, Rome, Madrid and Cuba. I believe that we have here a definite diversion of funds for which the War Office is in no way responsible, though it is the Department responsible for the control of the units from whom these funds have been derived. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to tell us that some steps are being taken to control any further escape of these funds, and to try to recover them from where they are gone.

4.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): My hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) has not left me very much time to deal with a rather complicated matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) raised the question of the responsibility of the War Office for welfare funds. I think perhaps we might he content on that point by noticing that the Polish Forces as a combatant force have been disbanded and the Polish Resettlement Corps was formed but not as a permanent institution. There has been and will be a problem of laying down the general principle on which to govern the disposal of these funds when the units to which the funds originally belonged are no longer in existence. It is, of course, a War Office responsibility to see that in those circumstances proper disposal is made.
On the first question raised by the hon. Member for Bexley. These funds are unit welfare funds and I am not in a position to give him an exact answer. If similar questions were raised as to the amount of welfare funds owned by any unit of the British Army, we should not be able, without an entirely disproportionate amount of inquiry, to give any precise reply as to the amount involved. It will be realised also that what is the issue now is not merely an amount of money, but sports and welfare equipment on which a sum of money has been spent. Reference was made to supplies from non-British sources, such as gifts from Allied Government, or objects of various kinds that were claimed to be the property of the Polish state. It is our intention, if there are among such gifts vehicles which


would be of use to the Polish Government, to make an offer of those vehicles to them. With regard to any other objects there may be, the Polish Government have access to the ordinary legal machinery for making any claim which they feel they have to them.
With regard to the custody and disposal of the funds, I would first refer to the funds other than those arising from the Second Polish Corps which was in Italy. Apart from those funds, the position is that the units of the Polish Force were disbanded as a concomitant to the formation of the Polish Resettlement Corps. Some of the welfare funds, certain categories of the funds, and equipment, were made available to the Polish Combatant Association. That Association has been able to carry on valuable welfare services in resettlement work and in training and in the provision of legal aid for these men. It cannot be maintained that the money which became available to the Polish Combatant Association was in any sense diverted from its purpose. The Polish Combatant Association does not undertake to do work of this kind for those men who may have returned to Poland.
The remainder of the funds is at present the property of units of the Polish Resettlement Corps and in due time the question of its disposal will arise. We are of the opinion that these funds should go to a benevolent institution. One which recommends itself as the most appropriate is the Polish Soldiers Assistance Fund, which undertakes the welfare and well being of Poles, wherever they may be, either in Poland or outside. I hope that will commend itself, not only to my hon. Friend, but to all quarters of the House.
With regard to the sums raised from the Second Polish Corps which was in Italy, there was at one time a considerable sum in lire in this welfare fund. It was clear that when the disposal of that was considered weight should be given to the claims of expenditure on the welfare of Poles in this country, of Poles in Italy and of Poles in Poland. Some recognition of the claims of Poles in Poland has

already been made. Plans have been made for the disposal of this sum, and it is a matter of some regret that we have not been able to proceed further. It became apparent that legal proceedings were likely to occur. A body known as the "Third Carpathian Infantry Division Widows and Orphans and Invalids' Relief Fund" laid claim to some part of this sum. I think it will be putting it correctly to state that we expect legal proceedings to arise in consequence of that claim. We have not, therefore, been able to proceed with the plans we had in mind. We trust that, as soon as possible, the legal difficulties will be resolved, and that it will be possible to proceed with the disposal of this sum along the lines I have indicated.
It will be clear to the House that this money has either been, or will be, used for the welfare of the men by whom it was subscribed and for whom it was intended. It must be remembered that these sums spring originally from payments to the Polish Forces, the ultimate source of which was the British taxpayer. If it is felt in any quarters that we have not given sufficient weight to any claim of the Polish Government, I would remind the House of the terms of the financial agreement between His Majesty's Government and the provisional Polish Government as it then was. By that agreement our Government made no claim in respect of £73 million which they had advanced to the Polish Armed Forces and a claim for a further £50 million was left in abeyance.
A sum of £32 million for civilian administration was to be advanced to the Polish Government, and we were to make available to the Polish Government surplus goods to the value of £6 million. Those figures far exceed the sum of money now in question. I ask the House to believe that this money has been and will be used for its proper purposes, and that we have not been unreasonable towards the Polish Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Four o'Clock.